> although I imagine
> they would be able to find a more efficient or less FP-risky way of
writing
> them.
Not necessarily. Other than the things I mentioned, I don't see anything
particularly scarey about these rules. We have certainly written rules of
this sort to catch other things. By preference we'd go for multiple rawbody
rules and a meta. But there are things that you can't catch reliably that
way, and this might be one of them.
No telling if the rules are actually decent until the mass check results
come out. You can have something that works really well for you, and it
will hit absolutely nothing for anyone else, or it will FP all over the
place. Usually in the later case you can see what went wrong and make a
variation that will get around most or all the FPs, and sometimes you can
widen a rule to hit more spam and not FP.
Loren
