On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:37:46AM -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I'm not absolutely sure what @name in a regex really means to perl, but it
> seems to not be what I usually expect. Escaping the @ ends up producing the
> right results.
@name means the array "name". Perl isn't sure whether or not y
> Could you kindly explain to me about the @ character and why it needs to
be
> escaped, or in what conditions it needs to be escaped? Eg. you seem to
imply
> that it only needs to be escaped if followed by an alphabetic character.
Is
It seems to be a Perl thing, if it sees @name in a regex it see
r to use
the + until it reaches the end of the line and the \n. Hope I make sense! I
understand me anyway which I'm sure should count for something..
Cheers,
Jeremy
- Original Message -
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 2
ites like
http://www.regular-expressions.info.
Cheers,
Jeremy
- Original Message -
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: GIF stock spams
Interesting set of rules, they look like they should do fairly well. I&
> although I imagine
> they would be able to find a more efficient or less FP-risky way of
writing
> them.
Not necessarily. Other than the things I mentioned, I don't see anything
particularly scarey about these rules. We have certainly written rules of
this sort to catch other things. By prefe
Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: GIF stock spams
Interesting set of rules, they look like they should do fairly well. I'll
run a masscheck on them in a minute. If they are decent I'm sure SARE
would
be happy to incl
Interesting set of rules, they look like they should do fairly well. I'll
run a masscheck on them in a minute. If they are decent I'm sure SARE would
be happy to include them in the stock spam ruleset if you give permission.
The only thing I see that makes me a little nervous is the unescaped @
I've written a couple of rules for myself which seems to catch the stock GIF
spams I receive fairly well. I've attached them here for your perusal. I
don't claim to be an expert in regex so they may not be the best way to
write such a rule, but they work for me! But you should score them according
Joey a écrit :
> So if I use postfix I'm SOL?
amavisd-new.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: viernes, 24 de febrero de 2006 19:06
> Para: 'Ruben Cardenal'; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Asunto: RE: GIF stock spams
>
> Sorry wasn't thinking, should this work?
>
>
> header ICAB_FW2 Subject =~ /^Fw:\s\d{1,9}$/i s
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: GIF stock spams
Hi Joel,
Well, I have spamassassin scoring as spam from 3.0 on, and until 14 gets
quarantined for review for messages not scoring BAYES_99. Almost 250.000
messages scoring over 14 with only 1 FP being rejected (and was quite an
unusual situ
So if I use postfix I'm SOL?
-Original Message-
From: Ruben Cardenal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:02 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: GIF stock spams
Hi Joel,
Well, I have spamassassin scoring as spam from 3.0 on, and until 14
llinare.org/qmail-scanner/) That kind of funcinality has
been added in the Qmail-Scanner 2.00 RC1 .
Good luck,
Ruben
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Joey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: viernes, 24 de febrero de 2006 18:47
> Para: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Asun
I get a ton of these. However, I've also got about 30 spamtrap addresses
aliased to my account. I also run my SA threshold at 7, so those two factors
probably account for a lot of the reason I get so many.
Anyway, the SARE stock rules help quite a bit, but I still see a fair number
of these t
* 6.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
So 6.0 point for your BAYES I hope your BAYES is well trained and never
gets corrupted
Works like a charm :)
i've only dared goto a 3 however so far so good
>
> > * 6.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
>
> So 6.0 point for your BAYES I hope your BAYES is well trained and never
> gets corrupted
Works like a charm :)
Ruben
: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: GIF stock spams
I catch them all, for example:
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.0 ICAB_FW2 ICAB_FW2
* 1.1 EXTRA_MPART_TYPE Header has extraneous Content-type:...type=
entry
* 1.9 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 BODY: HTML: images with 800-1200 bytes of
words
I'm getting hammered by these as well, usually scoring below 2 points. I'm
running most of the standard SARE rules (including SARE_STOCKS). Any advice?
Bayes training has (so far) been ineffective.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Chris Conn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, Februa
> * 6.0 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
So 6.0 point for your BAYES I hope your BAYES is well trained and never gets
corrupted
Maurice Lucas
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 17:44 +0100, Ruben Cardenal wrote:
> I catch them all, for example:
>
> X-Spam-Report:
> * 1.0
I catch them all, for example:
X-Spam-Report:
* 1.0 ICAB_FW2 ICAB_FW2
* 1.1 EXTRA_MPART_TYPE Header has extraneous Content-type:...type=
entry
* 1.9 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12 BODY: HTML: images with 800-1200 bytes of
words
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 6.0 B
20 matches
Mail list logo
