[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       spamassassin-devel
Subject:    Re: Returned mail: see the transcript [FAILED(1)]
From:       Karsten =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Br=E4ckelmann?= <guenther () rudersport ! de>
Date:       2012-12-11 21:56:01
Message-ID: 1355262961.4853.15.camel () monkey
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 09:37 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I recommend you consider locally scoring these two rules lower such as 
> 0.5 in the meantime.
> 
> Henrik, I'm adding a score 0.5 to your TAB_IN_FROM rule. I believe that 
> will limit it to that score as the highest possibility during mass checks.
> 
> Karsten, same thing for your KB_DATE_CONTAINS_TAB.

Sure, please go ahead.

> However, perhaps we want to add another meta such as the mailing list 
> portion of the existing rules?

Unless these are really worthwhile rules in mass-check, I'd be fine with
dropping them altogether. The Date header one was/is hitting a pretty
distinctive sub-set of spam for me, though it isn't essential for
classification.

On the down-side, these "additional tab in headers" style rules have
been reported to FP on mail passing (read: being rewritten by) certain
ISPs and mailing-list infrastructure.


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]