Thanks, Pete! For what it's worth, the rule 963461 hit 647 times here, and after putting in the Rule Panic entries, stopping and starting my persistent sniffer, and then re-queuing my messages held with this rule hit, 216 of the messages were still deemed spam and were held by Declude (and maybe Message Sniffer with a new rule hit).
Ham messages that were affected by the 963461 rule were from all over the place, with no particular sender or MTA. Andrew 8) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [sniffer] Bad Rule Alert: 963461 follow up. > > Hello Sniffer Folks, > > Regarding rule 963461 - the rule was coded for a short sequence of > (3x). It was misinterpreted and/or > miscopied as part of > obfuscation. > > The rule was coded at 20060417.1929 E and removed at approximately > 20060418.1000 E. > > There was one additional rule pulled (963533) which was coded for a > binary segment of an image file. No hits have been reported on the > second rule at this time. > > Best, > _M > > Pete McNeil (Madscientist) > President, MicroNeil Research Corporation Chief SortMonster > (www.sortmonster.com) Chief Scientist (www.armresearch.com) > > > This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For > information and (un)subscription instructions go to > http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html > This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
