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

List:       spamassassin-users
Subject:    Re: complete false hits for BASE64 and LW_STOCK_SPAM4
From:       Matt Kettler <mkettler_sa () verizon ! net>
Date:       2007-02-09 23:29:23
Message-ID: 45CD03D3.4090205 () verizon ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>>> Why do I need a custom rule to work around an FP in the ruleset?
>> See above.
>
> It's really hard not to be really annoyed with this answer.  

If you don't like my answers, you're free to not accept my help.

But please keep in mind two things:
1) I often come across as more rude than I'm intending to be because I,
like you might be, am a busy person. I'm often pressed for time, and my
answers tend to be terse, and a bit blunt.
2) I don't also have enough spare time to both offer free help, and
spend time considering my choices of wording. As such, you'll often see
my current moods, knee-jerk reactions, and opinions regarding technical
matters biasing my overall verbiage.

Those are character flaws on my part, and being busy isn't much of an
excuse, but at least I'm working for free.

I also assure you that had I meant to insult you, it would be rather
obvious.

Also consider:
1) I've already spent the time to write a rule for you in an effort to
try to help out.
2) your own choice of wording isn't exactly devoid of annoyances either.

So, if my response was annoying, it's because I slept poorly last night,
had a morning meeting to go to,  found it obnoxious that you insisted an
obviously non-stock configuration was, and my attempt to help was met
with indignation. So my minor annoyance showed through.
> What kind of nonsense did you think my question was?
>
> If LW_STOCK_SPAM is a SARE RULE, then I am requesting a revision to
> the SARE rule.  Why on the gods green earth would you assume that I
> wanted a fix in the base distribution for a SARE rule?
Fair enough.. However, the custom rule I came up with doesn't deal with
this LW_STOCK_SPAM. It deals with MIME_BASE64_TEXT, which IS a base
distribution rule, but isn't generally a problem for most folks. I would
not want to to suggest the devs should commit a modification to the base
ruleset to fix how this rule interacts with crackberry, because the base
ruleset isn't much of a problem.

As for making a change to the SARE ruleset to fix LW_STOCK_SPAM. Sure..
That said, as noted elsewhere, this rule shouldn't have fired for this
message, which makes me wonder why it fired.


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