Hello Bryan, Tuesday, August 10, 2004, 8:38:24 AM, Chris wrote:
CS> Do you also have this rule __SARE_HTML_HAS_MSG ? CS> IF you don't have this rule, then this other rule will always hit. More to the point, where do you have this rule? It sounds like you have an OLD version of our html1.cf file -- the first release of 70_sare_html*.cf stated that file 0 should always be used, and file 1 should be used by more aggressive systems, file 2 by systems even more aggressive, etc. The __SARE_HTML_HAS_MSG rule was in file 0, and the SARE_HTML_NO_BODY was in file 1. Several people misread or misinterpreted the instructions, and used file 1 without file 0, a) getting these same results, and b) missing a whole lot of benefit from file 0. It took only two weeks of this type of question before I added the __SARE_HTML_HAS_MSG rule to file 1, and that was in April. Hie thee to http://www.rulesemporium.com and get thee the current files 0 and files 1, and thy problems shalt melt away (at least this one should). Bob Menschel CS> -----Original Message----- CS> From: Bryan Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CS> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:36 AM CS> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CS> Subject: SARE_HTML_NO_BODY question CS> This is rule is hitting on every email. I would assume looking at the CS> describe line, that the body of the email would have to be empty . I have CS> since lowered the score to .5. My question is what is this rule supposed to CS> match? CS> meta SARE_HTML_NO_BODY ( !__SARE_HTML_HAS_MSG ) CS> describe SARE_HTML_NO_BODY Message is empty CS> score SARE_HTML_NO_BODY 0.5 CS> #counts SARE_HTML_NO_BODY 728s/2h of 85079 corpus (62484s/22595h CS> RM) 06/07/04 CS> #max SARE_HTML_NO_BODY 942s/2h of 89684 corpus (67687s/21997h CS> RM) 05/23/04 CS> #counts SARE_HTML_NO_BODY 1s/0h of 32534 corpus (9287s/23247h JH) CS> 05/19/04 CS> #counts SARE_HTML_NO_BODY 0s/8h of 6944 corpus (3188s/3756h CT) CS> 05/19/04 CS> Thanks CS> Bryan -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
