Earlier, I wrote:
> > I came up with a set of rules which appear to catch the
> > new strain of spam with a meaningless jumble of words in
> > the body, while hopefully not catching any legitimate mail.
Rubin Bennett replied:
> I believe that the Backhair Ruleset will catch these
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Rich Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I came up with a set of rules which appear to catch the new strain
> of spam with a meaningless jumble of words in the body, [...]
> header__MPOP_SUBJ1Subject =~ /Re: [A-Z]+, \S+ \S+ \S+/
You may want to compare/contrast the
Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't find any indication anywhere on the Web that mPOP is
> used for anything but spam. If anyone can provide evidence that
> it can be used for ham on a valid webmail site, I'll lower the
> score.
There are a few seemingly genuine messages here:
h
Hello Rich,
Saturday, January 10, 2004, 10:27:47 PM, you wrote:
RW> I came up with a set of rules which appear to catch the new strain
RW> of spam with a meaningless jumble of words in the body, while hope-
RW> fully not catching any legitimate mail. See below; comments welcome,
RW> and (natural
I believe that the Backhair Ruleset will catch these as well; no sense
in duplicating work taht soneone else has already done!
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
Rubin
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 01:27, Rich Wales wrote:
> I came up with a set of rules which appear to catch t
I came up with a set of rules which appear to catch the new strain
of spam with a meaningless jumble of words in the body, while hope-
fully not catching any legitimate mail. See below; comments welcome,
and (naturally) everyone is free to use these rules if you want to.
Regarding my body rule (_
