I like this rule! It will tag emails talking about Arod and the Yankees. I sure don't want to hear about that any more!
See you in the spring!!!! Go Boston!!!!! :P --Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Britt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad? > > > I had to check. I only got down to "adirondack mountains" > in the first > 10 of 764 hits. This would be a good example of a poorly > written rule. > > Bryan Britt > Beltane Web Services > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICQ: 53037451 > Bryan L. Britt 501-327-8558 > Beltane Web Services, Conway, AR http://www.beltane.com > ~~~~~~~~~~Support Private Communications on the Internet~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > ----------------------- Original Message ----------------------- > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:53:18 -0500, Matt Kettler > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 08:30 AM 2/20/04 -0500, Michael Clark wrote: > > >I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I > sent blocked > > >by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it > matched this rule. > > > > > >Matching Subject: *ro?d* > > > > Sounds like something some foolish (albeit well intending) > sysadmin added > > without thinking about the wide range of strings that will match. > > > > Then again, I've seen commercial scanners contain *anal* > out of the box... > > heaven forbid you should work with analog electronics or > try to analyze > > anything. > >
