On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:59:22AM -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Matthew Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Jon Kvebaek wrote: > >>Hi, > >>we are currently receiving a lot of mail like the one listed beneath. No > >>rules seem to hit it at all, and it gets a low negative score. Does > >>anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this (except that I could > >>make some rules punishing the occurence of wristwatches or other > >>time-keeping devices?) > > > >It gets a score of over 10 here. > > > >Try some of the rules from > > > > http://www.le.ac.uk/cc/mcn4/spam/uolcc.cf > > > >I've not updated the watch ones for the latest batch, but you > >might like to try the UOLCC_UKGEO rule at the bottom (definitely > >adjust score until you are happy: it seems OK for me but you > >should start lower...) > > 70_sare_specific.cf
Sorry, that's too cryptic for me to understand. Are you trying to say that I should be using that ruleset (I am), that the OP should be (they are), or something else? Matthew -- Matthew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UNIX and e-mail Systems Administrator, Network Support Section, Computer Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
