You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com> on 2010/06/09 16:10:20 UTC
Rule overlap
I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
* 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
* 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
--
Bowie
Re: Rule overlap
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
Ned Slider wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 10:45 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 09.06.10 10:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
>>>
>>> * 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
>>> * 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
>>>
>>> The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
>>
>> I think I found some another:
>>
>> RDNS_DYNAMIC versus FH_HOST_EQ_* rules (FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP,
>> FH_HOST_EQ_PACBELL_D, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P and FH_HOST_IN_ADDRARPA)
>>
>
> Found a similar one myself last week. Filed a bug and it was fixed
> very quickly in the next rule update:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6446
>
> So do file a bug report :)
>
Filed a bug for the prescription rules:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
Bowie
Re: Rule overlap
Posted by Ned Slider <ne...@unixmail.co.uk>.
On 06/10/2010 10:45 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 09.06.10 10:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
>>
>> * 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
>> * 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
>>
>> The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
>
> I think I found some another:
>
> RDNS_DYNAMIC versus FH_HOST_EQ_* rules (FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP,
> FH_HOST_EQ_PACBELL_D, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P and FH_HOST_IN_ADDRARPA)
>
Found a similar one myself last week. Filed a bug and it was fixed very
quickly in the next rule update:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6446
So do file a bug report :)
Re: Rule overlap
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
On 09.06.10 10:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
>
> * 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
> * 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
>
> The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
I think I found some another:
RDNS_DYNAMIC versus FH_HOST_EQ_* rules (FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP,
FH_HOST_EQ_PACBELL_D, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P and FH_HOST_IN_ADDRARPA)
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
How does cat play with mouse? cat /dev/mouse
Re: Rule overlap
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
On 09.06.10 10:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I was looking at the hits on a drug spam and I noticed these two:
>
> * 1.1 NO_PRESCRIPTION BODY: No prescription needed
> * 1.5 FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED BODY: Phrase: no prescription needed.
>
> The rules themselves are very similar. Should these two be combined?
apparently yes:
72_active.cf:
body FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED /No.{1,10}P(?:er|re)scr[i1]pt[i1][o0]n (?:needed|requ[1i]re)/i
20_drugs.cf:
body NO_PRESCRIPTION /no.{1,10}P(?:er|re)scription.{1,10}(?:needed|require|necessary)/i
I wonder what score would
meta PRESCRIPT ( FB_NO_SCRIP_NEEDED && NO_PRESCRIPTION )
get by masscheck.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist
"So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton