At 11:32 2003-01-31 -0500, fleet(_at_)teachout(_dot_)org wrote:
Thanks. I knew I had seen something somewhere!
Yea, that happens to me more and more these days.
* ^Message-ID:[ ]*<$PART1\$$PART2\$$PART3
Much easier to mess with. (I take it the "<" in this instance doesn't
cause problems?)
Why should it? It's just a literal '<' character. _esscaping_ it makes it
a regexp character class macro.
I've set this recipe to send results to a separate mailbox where I can
watch it a little closer.
I emit "SPAM: " entries to my logs containing explanations for why a
message was rejected as spam, and I also include _advisories_ as well - it
is easy to add a recipe that doesn't discard the message, but simply
indicates that it would have. Perform advisories (data collection) before
rejection, so you can see how they measure up against the regular set of
filters you already employ (seeing as if you run them _after_ you've
discarded, you'll only see their performance against messages which survive
your existing rules, unless you're tagging messages (ala spam assassin) and
still delivering them in the end).
---
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail