RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility.

2003-06-06 Thread Madscientist
, June 04, 2003 2:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility. Forgive the intrusion (I just troll here, don't actually have JM yet), but this idea seems flawed. If you quit testing once a certain weight has been reached, wouldn't you cut

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility.

2003-06-06 Thread R. Scott Perry
Do the positive weight tests (black tests) first in highest to lowest weight order. I'll just comment here before this goes too far. It is very unlikely that we will rearrange the order that the tests are run it, as many of them must be run at a certain point, and there are several cases where

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility.

2003-06-05 Thread Rob Salmond
Charles: They need to not be greedy matches or better yet support a very small set of rules, an overly simplified engine could allow for word boundries and whitespace with optional letters and make word and phrase filters much more powerful. I agree, regular expressions are somewhat more powerful

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility.

2003-06-04 Thread Markus Gufler
Hi Rob We plan to add regular expressions to SpamChk. This should be ready at the end of july after we've finished some other tasks. For all who doesn't know what are regular expressions: With the following expression you can check if a string is a valid email-Adress:

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Easy way to add power and flexibility.

2003-06-04 Thread John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
Forgive the intrusion (I just troll here, don't actually have JM yet), but this idea seems flawed. If you quit testing once a certain weight has been reached, wouldn't you cut off further testing that might reduce that weight? In a system where a score can go up and down depending on the