Yep. Thanks. Did it already after reading the header info. Re, Clay >>> On 2/2/2007 at 10:44 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: GET RID of Antidrug. If you're using anything later than SA3.x it actually downgrades your spam protection. The Antidrug rules have already been incorporated in to SA.
>>> On 2/2/2007 at 8:44 AM, "Clay Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks, Bowie. I'll take you up on #3... nothing like starting a good fight. :-) Regards, Clay >>> On 2/1/2007 at 5:09 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Clay Davis wrote: > I am looking for some advise on which rules to apply: > > Where are the guidelines for (not) applying rules like antidrug.cf? > I see the header stipulates that it is not intended for v3.0 and > higher. If these stipulations exist, are they always found in the > comments of each cf or can I find this information in a more > consolidated location? > > I've had antidrug.cf for a while and kept it after upgrading, but I > see now I may have been reducing SA's effectiveness. It depends on the rule set. Different rules are written by different people and it is up to them how to handle things like this. There are a few things you can do: 1) Read the headers in the cf file. 2) Go to the website that has the file and read the descript ions. 3) If in doubt, ask on the list. We can tell you (and argue about) which rules would work best for you. -- Bowie
