On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:11:03PM -0500, Damian Menscher wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org wrote:
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:
[snipped]
I don't use SA. I use an all-procmail solution. Okay, I lied:
I have SA stuck on the end of my procmail setup as a fail-safe.
Often as not, it ends up causing more false-pozzes than it saves
me false-negs from my system.
I doubt Sean has wordlists like that. I sure do not. I
have no lists of bad words at all. Nor do I have blacklists
of IP addresses, etc. Most of my recipes do not even look
at the body of a message.
I will try to have something more useful than bragging to say
about the subject in a few weeks.
Dallman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail