Title: RE: rule secrecy *again* (Re: Well, that didn't take very bloody long)
>
> ho hum... here we go again. :(
:)
>Secrecy is *NOT* an essential element of rule development. It seems
>logical to think it is, but evidence repeatedly demonstrates otherwise.
You know
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Loren Wilton writes:
> Ok, remember that "Name Wrote: :)" emails? They've completely
> changed. Now it's "hi username" instead. Joy, oh joy. Can anyone find
> any common elements in these emails because whoever this putz is, they're
> adaptin
At 12:27 PM 11/11/2006 +, Justin Mason wrote:
ho hum... here we go again. :(
As I've noted several times recently -- these *are* being caught by rules
which were developed "in the open" -- namely RCVD_FORGED_WROTE, which has
been sitting in my sandbox for several weeks, was announced in a ch
