On 06/19/2013 10:11 PM, ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
Hi John,
See the following example:
http://pastebin.com/DAYJ7NnJ
Lots of style gibberish for sure, but it failed to hit your rule
(sa-update ran at 4am today so it should have picked up anything
published). I'm guessing it's the parentheses.
Whack the mole! =)
--- Amir
p.s. On the upside, at least it hit bayes99! ;-)
imo, it makes little sense to write rules to catch these hashbusters. As
soon as a rule is show or published it the pattern wil be changed and
the rat race continues.
I'd suggest you disable MailScanner's remote img munging - this is so
2004... (MUAS block remote images anyway)
http://www.mailscanner.tv/1x1spacer.gif...........
the image URL may contain a listed domain and you'll miss it.
As this is applied to ham as well as spam, your bayes will learn
mailscanner.tv as spam AND ham making it harder to be effective.
Are you using RAZOR? if not, it may be time to deploy.
