List Mail User wrote: >>> ... >> >> I'm not really THAT badly off; I run all default 3.1.0 tests plus >> Bayes and DCC, three RBL's, URIBL/SURBL, some SARE rule sets and a >> bunch of local rules. I do MTA-level blocking with Spamhaus >> SBL-XBL, which knocks off at least half the junk before it reaches >> SA. But I don't run Razor or Pyzor, so never get DIGEST_MULTIPLE. >> Maybe I should change that. >> >> My point was, two people stated that SARE rules take care of this >> type of pill spam, and they don't. >> >> Pierre >> > Pierre, > > I does seem that the digests plus Bayes are the best defense against > these. Just a few minutes ago another arrived: > > Y 15 - > BAYES_99,DCC_CHECK,DIGEST_MULTIPLE,HTML_90_100,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RCVD_IN_XBL,URIBL_RHS_POST,URIBL_RHS_WHOIS
Where are those URIBL_RHS_* tests from? I see no mention of them on either SA or URIBL sites. Pierre
