On Sunday 20 June 2004 09:22 pm, Asif Iqbal wrote: > says now > > > No index found for ruleset named SARE_HEADER0. Check that this ruleset > is still valid. > No index found for ruleset named SARE_HEADER1. Check that this ruleset > is still valid. > No index found for ruleset named SARE_HEADER2. Check that this ruleset > is still valid. > No index found for ruleset named SARE_HEADER3. Check that this ruleset > is still valid.
Bob announced back on the 12th of June about the header_abuse rule sets being changed as shown below. I initially made a manual change to my RDJ to get the 0 rule set and made the same change in MRDJ. Now the new RDJ has the ruleset shown as 70_sare_header.cf. If you want the complete sare_header set just put sare_header on your trusted rulesets line, if you want the 70_sare_header0 set just put sare_header0 on your trusted rulesets line and add a 0 to the CF_FILES[24]="70_sare_header.cf" line. Major update: The header_abuse rule set has been heavily revised and expanded. Having increased in size several fold, it has now been split into multiple files: 70_sare_header0.cf, 70_sare_header1.cf, 70_sare_header2.cf, and 70_sare_header3.cf As with the HTML and General Subject rule sets, header0 contains rules that hit significant spam and NO ham, header1.cf contains rules that either hit only a few spam or do hit ham but have an S/O above 0.900, header2.cf contains rules that hit spam in the past, but no emails at all in recent mass-checks, header3.cf contains rules that hit lots of ham, but might be useful for more aggressive systems. #### Here are settings for sare_header #### SARE_HEADER=24; # Index of sare_header data into the arrays is 24 SARE_HEADER_ABUSE=24; # Left here for backwards compatibility CF_URLS[24]="http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules/70_sare_header.cf"; CF_FILES[24]="70_sare_header.cf"; OLD_CF_FILES[24]="header_abuse.cf 70_sare_header_abuse.cf"; If I'm wrong about any of this please someone let me know. But, its working just fine here on my system both when I modified RDJ and now with the new updated RDJ. -- Chris Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org 6:19am up 10 days, 16:44, 2 users, load average: 0.50, 0.68, 0.89 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Like, if I'm not for me, then fer shure, like who will be? And if, y'know, if I'm not like fer anyone else, then hey, I mean, what am I? And if not now, like I dunno, maybe like when? And if not Who, then I dunno, maybe like the Rolling Stones? -- Rich Rosen (Rabbi Valiel's paraphrase of famous quote attributed to Rabbi Hillel.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
