ynnn
my care factor about what some spammy troll like yourself has to say,
is, well... in the words of Elton John - too low for zero
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 00:25 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
2011/11/24 Noel Butler
I created the following rule:
header__PORN_RULE01 SUBJECT =~
/Re.(sexy|blonde).*(messy|wants|fuck|cuntzn)/i
header__PORN_RULE02 SUBJECT =~ /S.C.H..O.O.L..G.I..R.L.P..0..R.N/I
meta PORN_RULES (__PORN_RULE01 + __PORN_RULE02 =1)
score PORN:_RULES 5.0
But emails are still getting
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 06:17 -0600, Sergio wrote:
But emails are still getting in, any comment on what I need to fix on the
rule? or if someone has a better rule to stop this that wants to share the
rule, it will be appreciated.
Change the meta to this:
meta PORN_RULES (__PORN_RULE01 ||
On 11/27/2011 8:26 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Change the meta to this:
meta PORN_RULES (__PORN_RULE01 || __PORN_RULE02)
A quick glance at the SA rules for name prefixes would have told you
that rules with names that start with a double underscore have a zero
score, so your meta will never
Thank you all for your inputs, as you can see I am creating my own rules as
SA needs help on stopping spam.
I want to thank you KAM for the share of his rules, I have learned a lot
looking on them and thanks to that I have modified the rules that I had to
make them more easy to work, the
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:25:59 -0300
Christian Grunfeld christian.grunf...@gmail.com wrote:
0.000,000,01% is 1 FP over 10,000,000,000 !!
I'm not scared about your email volume...I doubt about your FP
ratio !!!
I agree. I don't believe that FP ratio either.
Regards,
David.
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:04:25 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
my care factor about what some spammy troll like yourself has to say,
is, well... in the words of Elton John - too low for zero
With all due respect, a reported FP of 0.0001% is simply not believable.
Regards,
On 11/27/2011 10:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
I want to thank you KAM for the share of his rules, I have learned a
lot looking on them and thanks to that I have modified the rules that
I had to make them more easy to work, the arithmetic on the rules with
the operand + is working really nice I have
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 10:40 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/27/2011 10:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
I want to thank you KAM for the share of his rules, I have learned a
lot looking on them and thanks to that I have modified the rules that
I had to make them more easy to work, the
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have
had 0.0001% of FP's in that, which is really good.
At 1.7 million email a day that's at very most
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:43:04 +
RW wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we
have had 0.0001% of FP's in that, which is really
The SA wiki says: rules starting with a double undescore are
evaluated with no score, and are intended for use in meta rules where
you don't want the sub-rules to have a score. on this page:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules and yes, the typo
(undescore) is on the web page - thats a
To answer your subject, no, nothing with __ has changed in quite some
time that I can recollect. More information below but I believe you are
misreading the docs.
On 11/27/2011 11:52 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
The SA wiki says: rules starting with a double undescore are
evaluated with no
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:14:08 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The score of a rule has nothing to do with the arithmetic for meta
operations in determining if the rule is true. Specifically An
arithmetic meta rule can be used to tell if more than a certain
number of sub rules matched.
Most
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Sergio wrote:
my major concern is in the garbled words like:
S:C H #O+O L G l, R%L P *0 *R N*
T\E /ENS} P)0_R \N
S:C H #O+O L G l, R%L P *0 *R N*
G ,RA _N N}Y } P %0 ~R |N \
P,0_ R .N PI ~C}T+U-R(E%S.
TR %A *N #S S. E. X{UA`L P0/R N_
What it will be the best way to catch
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com wrote:
On 11/27/2011 10:24 AM, Sergio wrote:
I want to thank you KAM for the share of his rules, I have learned a lot
looking on them and thanks to that I have modified the rules that I had to
make them more easy to work,
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 17:46 +, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:14:08 -0500
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
The score of a rule has nothing to do with the arithmetic for meta
operations in determining if the rule is true. Specifically An
arithmetic meta rule can be used to tell if more
Yes, thats clear, but what is the Wiki statement I quoted about rules
whose name starts with a double underscore meant to mean? Merely that
any attempt to add a score line for such a rule will be rejected?
Pretty much, yes. Rules starting with __ are intended to be used in
meta rules and never
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:08:55 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yes, thats clear, but what is the Wiki statement I quoted about rules
whose name starts with a double underscore meant to mean? Merely that
any attempt to add a score line for such a rule will be rejected?
No, point is that rules that
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 18:40 +, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:08:55 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Yes, thats clear, but what is the Wiki statement I quoted about rules
whose name starts with a double underscore meant to mean? Merely that
any attempt to add a score line for such a
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:31:22 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
I also notice, because I tried it to see what happens, that you can
submit a score line for a rule with a __ name prefix without an error
being reported. Is that line silently thrown away?
I don't know. You could try it, but since it's
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:04 +, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:31:22 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
I also notice, because I tried it to see what happens, that you can
submit a score line for a rule with a __ name prefix without an error
being reported. Is that line silently thrown
Whereas my concerns for your mathematical nonsense is zip, nada, zero, nothing,
goawayyoubothermechild.
Seriously, your claim is patent nonsense yet you expect people to listen to
you. That IS rather childish behavior, you know. You can't have been running
anti-spam tools long enough to reach
Even with that, RW, he can't have been running long enough to give that number.
He needs a decent sample of failures before his number is better a figure at
least ten times the figure he gave.
And NO system with that many mails fails to make false positives unless one is
arrogant enough to
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
{^_^}
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, RW wrote:
If you actually want give a score to a hidden rule (to see whether
it's being hit), I would do it this way:
metaBAR __FOO
score BAR 0.001
Another way to accomplish the same thing is to temporarily change your
__FOO rules to T_FOO (simple text
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8 number.
So 000235 is legal. It means 157 in
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format? Itds
obviously something I should avoid in
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 15:27 -0600, Dave Funk wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, RW wrote:
If you actually want give a score to a hidden rule (to see whether
it's being hit), I would do it this way:
metaBAR __FOO
score BAR 0.001
Another way to accomplish the same
On 2011/11/27 13:43, Thierry Besancon wrote:
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards, a number beginning with a 0 is an base 8
On 2011/11/27 13:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:26 -0800, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form 178.000235.150.000372 as
actual addresses? That seems like a serious fault in the browsers.
What piece of junk software presented an IP in that format?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:43 AM, Thierry Besancon wrote:
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
According to C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
{^_^}
adding to that: dotted hex IPv4 0x12.0xab.0xcd.0xef. single
On 2011/11/27 15:05, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 01:26 AM, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
{^_^}
adding to that:
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 16:48 +, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:43:04 +
RW wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:06:44 +1000
Noel Butler wrote:
its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very
little in them here because of our approach, and in our tests we
your opinion means less than that to me, since for some unknown reason,
for some time you have taken an extreme hatred of me, but hey what ever
floats your boat I dont know you so I dont give a fuck about your
reasons or your rants.
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 13:05 -0800, jdow wrote:
Whereas my
36 matches
Mail list logo
