On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:58:59 -0800, Greg Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted to spamassassin-talk:
A thought on spammers oft-used sets of 'random' character lists in
emails...an example:
gnqplleqhzblll
u
wfjmvfe upvxoi lwhm
xqs
flckwrtsmufx irwajksqsnw er wcfjgfmk jugxfq
Have you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Re: 'random' character sets
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:58:59 -0800, Greg Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted to spamassassin-talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
You know, the answer to this, is the answer to many questions. The solution
is the much needed accumulator eval. Yes you can get some FPs on 3-5
consonants. But what if you set this rule to only hit if 4+ hits were found
of
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Justin Mason wrote:
BTW, SpamAssassin originally started with accumulating rules. But I took
it out, as it meant a long hammy mail had a much higher chance of FP'ing,
due to containing more text.
I'd be worried that accumulating hits would reintroduce the same
Justin Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, SpamAssassin originally started with accumulating rules. But I took
it out, as it meant a long hammy mail had a much higher chance of FP'ing,
due to containing more text.
The problem exists anyway, since long nonspam messages are more
likely to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Justin,
Friday, November 7, 2003, 10:19:15 AM, you wrote:
Many of us are finding we hit limits with simple regex rules. To me, an
accumulator eval for rules is the next logical step.
Make sense?
JM BTW, SpamAssassin originally started with
On Friday 07 November 2003 06:24 pm, Robert Menschel wrote:
Or better: what if we specified in the rule a maximum score to accumulate
to? Maybe something like:
accumbody T_SAMPLE /(?:word1|word2|word3|word4|word5)/i,max=2.5
describe T_SAMPLE Message has medical words frequently used in
