On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:01:19AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/5/2010 1:39 AM: > > On 11/05/10 00:11, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Michael Orlitzky put forth on 11/4/2010 8:06 PM: > >>> On 11/04/2010 12:39 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >>>> Ned Slider put forth on 11/3/2010 6:33 PM: > >>>> > >>>>> My other thought was to simply comment (or document) ranges known to > >>>>> contain FPs and then the user can make a judgement call whether they > >>>>> want to comment out that particular regex based on their circumstances. > >>>>> Not a very elegant solution. > >>>> > >>>> I'm starting to wonder, considering your thoughts on FPs, if this might > >>>> be better implemented, for OPs concerned with potential FPs, via a > >>>> policy daemon, or integrated into SA somehow and used for scoring > >>>> instead of outright blocking. I don't have the programmatic skill to > >>>> implement such a thing. > >>> > >>> > >>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_DYNAMIC > >> > >> Any idea where I can get a look that the regexes they use in this rule? > >> > > > > I think this is the latest: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/rules/branches/3.2/20_dynrdns.cf > > Did you happen to notice the absolutely tiny number of expressions in > the SA file, as compared to the ~1600 in the file whose use I promote > here? Maybe I should get in contact with someone in the project. If > only half were deemed usable by them it would be a huge improvement over > what they have.
Did you happen to notice the absolutely generic expressions in the SA file, unlike your file which mostly lists specific domains? Not that I don't agree the whole SA file should be revamped, but you are again jumping the gun.
