Re: messages slipping past SpamAssassin

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> Re: infrangible Phharam aceutical
> Re: dud Phharam aceutical
> Re: tympanum Phharamaceutica l
> Re: paraph Phharamaceu tical
> Re: investigator Ph haramacy

Someone was proposing rules the other day for mis-spelled pharm stuff.


> The body of the message looks weird in Outlook, the drugs are written
> vertically, which I would assume confuses SA.  If anyone would like to

If you don't have antidrug.cf (you do by default on 3.x) and you don't have
the SARE drug rules, you probably should.  Leo is pretty good about fiddling
around his vertical table spam from day to day, so I can't promise they will
be caught.  But the sare rules are pretty good about chatching most of his
variations.

        Loren

Re: messages slipping past SpamAssassin

[Julian Underwood <ma...@underwoods.net>]

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 21:33 -0800, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > Re: infrangible Phharam aceutical
> > Re: dud Phharam aceutical
> > Re: tympanum Phharamaceutica l
> > Re: paraph Phharamaceu tical
> > Re: investigator Ph haramacy
> 
> Someone was proposing rules the other day for mis-spelled pharm stuff.
> 
> 
> > The body of the message looks weird in Outlook, the drugs are written
> > vertically, which I would assume confuses SA.  If anyone would like to
> 
> If you don't have antidrug.cf (you do by default on 3.x) and you don't have
> the SARE drug rules, you probably should.  Leo is pretty good about fiddling
> around his vertical table spam from day to day, so I can't promise they will
> be caught.  But the sare rules are pretty good about chatching most of his
> variations.
> 
>         Loren

Thanks for your response.  Yeah, I have antidrug which comes with the
3.X.  However I don't see any SARE rules specific to drugs?  I'm looking
on rulesemporium.com... Could you direct me towards a link?  Thanks...

Julian