On 4/19/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Monnerie wrote: > > On Dienstag, 18. April 2006 17:20 Carl Chipman wrote: > > > >> I'm getting a bunch of these > >> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.6 required=6.0 > >> tests=BAYES_50: 1.567,HTML_70_80: 0.039,HTML_MESSAGE: 0.001 > >> > > > > Your message gave me: > > > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=17.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 > > tests=DRUGS_ERECTILE=0.1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, > > RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_AB_SURBL=3.306, > > URIBL_BLACK=3, URIBL_OB_SURBL=2.617, URIBL_SBL=1.094, > > URIBL_SC_SURBL=3.6, > > URIBL_WS_SURBL=1.533 > > > > So you should use some SARE rules: http://rulesemporium.com > > > > > Why should Carl use SARE rules to catche this spam? None of the rules > you cite are SARE rules.. Not a single one. > > They're all standard SA 3.x rules, except URIBL_BLACK, which isn't from > SARE, it's from uribl.com. > > > Hi ,
I had the same problem tried upgrading the SARE rules but still no result. Later I upgraded my Fred's Rules set & I am getting 9.x plus hits on such spam. http://www.rulesemporium.com/other-rules.htm Thanx & Regards Ram
