Being discussed now, and has been in the back of my mind for a while as well. You are correct AFAIK on the assumptions you have made with :
antidrug chickenpox not sure on virus warning rules. More will follow. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Kohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:03 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: SARE team: Post-3.0 rules > > >To all those on the SARE team, plus experienced users: any chance I >could persuade to throw up a wiki (or just a reply email and >I'll do the >Wiki) with your personal recommendation on what SARE rules to >use with a >3.0 install. Specifically, I believe most of the drug rules are now in >the default ruleset so that also using the SARE file would be >a mistake. >But, I don't believe that, for instance, the virus warning >rules got in. >What about chickenpox? > >More generally, I think ><http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomRulesets> could get some >value out of a reorganization. Rather than listing alphabetically, it >would be great to say what rules are fine for a conservative deployment >(minimum likely false positives), which ones are more aggressive, which >ones are suitable for 3.0, etc. > > - dan >-- >Dan Kohn <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600> >
