Wouldn't it be easier/better to change the original rule to accept OE's undisclosed recipients format instead of adding a new rule? I'm too sleepy right at the moment to try writing regexes.
C On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:16, Daniel Rogers wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: > > We could add a negative > > > > header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/ > > describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software > > score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0 > > > > Something like that? > > Sounded great to me, until I checked my caught spam... > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Is your company looking for capital > X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 > Importance: Normal > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=19.6 required=5.0 >tests=NO_REAL_NAME,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,PARA_A_2_C_OF_1618,EXCUSE_3,EXCUSE_7,SECTION_301,SENT_IN_COMPLIANCE,JAVASCRIPT,SLIGHTLY_UNSAFE_JAVASCRIPT,MAILTO_LINK,MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ,FORM_W_MAILTO_ACTION,MURKOWSKI_CRUFT,MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ_REMOVE,FREQ_SPAM_PHRASE,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD > version=2.01 > > (And some that don't score quite so high.) > > Leave it to MS to mess things up... > > Here's what I did: > > header OE_UNDISC_RECIPS To =~ /\<Undisclosed-Recipient:\@.*;\>$/ > describe OE_UNDISC_RECIPS Valid-looking Outlook Express style To >"undisclosed-recipients" > score OE_UNDISC_RECIPS -3.0 > > What do people think of that? > > Dan. > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
