Keep in mind that spam is ever-changing, so that while antidrug is now part
of 3.0SA and there is no need for the current add-in antidrug ruleset,
things will probably change. For instance, adipren or some such is becoming
popular in spam over the last couple of weeks. So I forsee that there will
someday be a 3.0 antidrug, but it will be much smaller than the current one.
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Dan Kohn'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: SARE team: Post-3.0 rules
> 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>
> >
>
