oh.. so its still in there, but as a modified, improved, form -- not completely taken out.
thats what i thought was posted.
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 03:11 PM, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Any reason for this, or are we to use custom rules for that?
It was changed because the old test needed improvement, not on a whim.
Old HTML_WEB_BUGS rule wasn't a very good discriminator between HTML
spam and HTML ham. In other words, it had about the same S/O ratio as a
generic test for HTML. The new rule has a significantly higher S/O
ratio, although it doesn't hit as much spam since it's more specific.
The new rule requires that height and width be specified and that /\.(?:pl|cgi|php|asp|jsp|cfm)\b/i match the SRC attribute.
(S/O = spam/overall)
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, and open
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ source consulting (looking for new work)
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
