Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > Yeah, I could. I'd rather just point you at the text you quoted above > (^ really is substituted for @) or the email Theo sent earlier > suggesting the same thing. Combine that with rot13, or any other > rotNN you prefer.
Last comment from my side - what I'm having a bit of an issue with is this seemingly arbitrary substitution of '^' for '@', and that the rule that is desribed as "Message seems to contain rot13ed address" expects this, but couldn't actually catch anything that _was_ rot13'ed. The only other rotNN I know of is rot47, and that doesn't turn an '@' into a '^' either. > Yes, in your particular case it wasn't your email addressed obscured, > it was a hit on a binary part. Very true - for me, the focus has already shifted to the issue of embedded uuencoded files, which I think is more critical. > Sometimes rules hit things they're not intended to, or things they are > intended to hit but in ham. That's why SA is a score based system. > If you find that this particular rule is causing you problems perhaps > you may want to consider assigning it a zero score. Certainly. I was merely trying to bring it others' attention that this rule in my opinion has a much too high default score, and it does more bad than good. /Per Jessen, Zürich
