On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:31:29 +0200, Kai Schaetzl
<maillists(_at_)conactive(_dot_)com> wrote:
wrote on Thu, 27 May 2004 17:12:13 -0700:
I don't want to judge you, but I don't think that you have tested all
the procmail code out there
Why should I do?
You were the one who said:
"It's got tons of specialized rules against
obfuscation, especially from rules emporium, which are guaranteed to
work better than any rules a single human can invent for procmail."
It wasn't me.
Before you guarantee something you should verify your own claims.
If I can come up with a filter for something that Spamassassin doesn't
always catch, with me being not that experienced in Procmail, that
should tell you something.
Yes, it tells me that you don't know how it works and didn't read the
documentation.
Sure, if that's what you would like to convince yourself with,
Note, I'm not interested in flame wars pro and con something.
But somehow it seems that you're pushing this discussion to go that way.
If you don't like SA, fine.
Where did I say that?
Please read the posts carefully before you reply to them.
You may want to try to understand my answers in the context
in the root posting which asked for obfuscation rules.
You seem to be confused, you posted something that you wanted others to
take your word for it.
I replied, along with few others saying that what you posted is not true
in our configurations,now you are saying that we didn't understand your
"answers", which is not what I see in this thread.
It doesn't help at
all to add an additional rule to procmail. Scott Wiersdorf already explained
the caveats of this approach. It's a never-ending race. On the other hand,
with SA you have a ready-made system with hundreds of rules for catching
obfuscation alone and which doesn't need much care after the first tuning.
It's a decision between a scalable system which catches almost all spam
without any/much intervention by you and a system where you almost
single-handedly fight individual messages until you built so many rules that
they eventually catch almost all *your* spam (at least I hope so for you)
and you still have to take care of it because your rules cannot adapt to new
spam structures by themselves. Take attention of the "your", copying those
filters to someone else may create very disappointing results. If you want
to go the latter route, fine. It's only the latter route which may
eventually create invention and development, but it also takes time and
effort. If you just want to get rid of spam from one day to the other and
maybe for thousands of clients the former method is far more effective.
Uh, that's rather long almost non readable run-on sentence.
The problem with your post, you assume that people didn't read
documentation, copied rules from someone else, ....etc.
Your assumptions are wrong.
The bottom line is, for me at least, if I can write a rule in procmail,
why should I duplicate in spamassassin, knowing that my rules work in
procmail as expected?
Your rules in SA work, good for you, but you have to remember that not
every works as you do, that was the flaw in your previous post.
You posted a sweeping generalization "guaranteed to work better than any
rules a single human can invent for procmail" referring to some rules
you have, which I, along with few others here have problems in taking
just your word for it.
If you think that your rules in SA are better for you than any procmail
code, I have no problem with that, but do not tell me what I have done,
or build some theory based on what you think about how others configure
their systems.
With that being said, I am not going to continue this discussion with
you.
You seem to be rather on the aggressive side of discussion, which is not
my interest nor the reason that I read posts here.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail