What can I say except thanks in return :)
It's somewhat a community project though, so let's not forget those
that provide the feedback for which I am only a conduit. We all
benefit from that.
Matt
JR Tatum wrote:
Message
Hello Matthew,
Probably should have sent this off-list but I
just want you to know how much we appreciate the work you share with
the group. Your filters have helped reduce our spam significantly. I
know how often we seem to complain when things don't go right but how
infrequently we share praise when someone is willing to contribute
their knowledge and expertise. Thanks from all of us!!!
JR
Fred,
If you don't mind a short delay, I just finished the design on my new
site in which I am planning on placing this stuff. Given a little bit
of additional time to populate the pages in question and clean up the
files, I'll have this ready to download shortly. If you have the most
recent version that I shared with the group back on August 17th, it
contains exceptions for the majority of FP's, with the remaining things
only being stragglers. Unfortunately this type of filter is always
going to have FP's, so there is a reasonable limit to how much work
goes into counterbalances.
If anyone has any more counterbalances to suggest, now would be a
wonderful time so that I can get them into the file.
Thanks,
Matt
Frederick Samarelli wrote:
Matt can I take a look at an updated version of you files.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Bramble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the
ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add
these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip
it without any assistance.
I took note of your "parts" suggestion as well, but haven't yet
determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month
of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on
this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how
consistent the exception would be.
I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as
exceptions for "qos", "qmail" and a few updates for mail clients that
might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64.
Thanks,
Matt
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote:
I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH
tests:
BODY 0 CONTAINS QS-9000
BODY 0 CONTAINS QS9000
BODY 0 CONTAINS QS 9000
This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically
the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification.
John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA
Engineer/Consultant
eServices For You
www.eservicesforyou.com
|