On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org wrote:
At 11:13 2005-06-21 -0500, Damian Menscher wrote:
Procmail wasn't exactly designed to filter spam. You should, at minimum,
investigate the scoring features. Or, if you're intelligent, check into
Using or not using SA has no thing to do with intelligence. Several
contributors here on the procmail list get along fine without it. I've not
had any spam to my inbox in a week, and that's when I added a couple of
refinements to my filters to deal with some false pozzies on a few lists.
Mind telling us what your rules are, and how many false positives you
get? I use procmail to supplement spamassassin and clamav, but couldn't
imagine using it alone. Your rules must be quite impressive.
The irony of the regexp being used is that the body keywords will result in
his *OWN* message to this list not arriving back in his inbox.
Yes. In fact, I'm impressed that you managed to receive it, given that
you must filter on some of those words also. Here's what SpamAssassin
did with it:
Note that it got a bayes score of 0 even though it had lots of "bad"
words in it. Bayes scoring is very nice, which is why I'm so curious
how you managed to get by without it.
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group:(217)244-3074 |#=-
-=#| <menscher(_at_)uiuc(_dot_)edu> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/