I got the arbitrary filter part now...
Dan Mosedale wrote:
> {RoC} MasterMind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I also now frequent this newsgroup, so it's safe to reply here...
>>
>>
>>>I have put together some filters which should block at least
>>>80-95% of spam. I hope it BLOCKS all spam, but thats just
>>>hopefulness. It uses Mozilla mail's filters, and it has several
>>>actual filters, each with their own subfilters/rules. In this way
>>>its "modular" (actually not really, just more customizable) in
>>>that if you actually subsribe to say "porn mail" you can turn off
>>>the set of filters that targets porn mail.
>>
>
> This sounds very interesting; you might also see the "mozspam" thread
> in n.p.m.mail-news.
>
>
>>>I was disappointed that the filters did not allow me to scan the
>>>complete headers,
>>
>
> What do you mean by this? Using "Arbitrary Header" rules should allow
> you to look at any header line you wish.
>
>
>>>however I think my "filter package" is ready for use. I've named
>>>it "SpamSlayer", and it needs an easy installer package. Since
>>>its a ruleset, it goes in the mail folder, located in slightly
>>>different paths on different computers. Usually its something
>>>like: c:\windows\application data\mozilla/profiles/default
>>>user/(random string).slt/mail/(server IP address (don't know if
>>>this is the pop3 or smtp, since both of mine are the same))
>>
>>>If someone could setup an installer that could find this dynamic
>>>location and replace the current ruleset with the SpamSlayer
>>>ruleset, or even better, APPEND the SpamSlayer ruleset to the
>>>current one (so current filters aren't overwritten and lost). In
>>>addition a folder named "Possible Spam" (I can provide the files
>>>which make up the folder) must be created in the Local Folders
>>>folder.
>>
>
> Is appending what you really want? This would seem to disallow the
> ability to update existing filters.
>
>
>>>Unforetuneately, an XPI does not seem to have the capibilities to
>>>do what I need. The instructions for making one were also very
>>>confusing.
>>
>
> It doesn't? What's missing?
>
> Dan
