Per Jessen wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
To me it's a pretty much moot point - OBSCURED_EMAIL with its
1.6points
is of little use. I would certainly suggest reducing the default
score to a lot less. (are there really other single substitution
methods in common use that translate '@' to '^' ?)
Yeah -- that would be the reason why there's a rule to look for such a
thing. We don't just make rules up for the hell of it.
Can you list any of these methods? We know it's not rot13.
Yeah, I could. I'd rather just point you at the text you quoted above
(^ really is substituted for @) or the email Theo sent earlier
suggesting the same thing. Combine that with rot13, or any other rotNN
you prefer.
Yes, in your particular case it wasn't your email addressed obscured, it
was a hit on a binary part. Since we know that the hit wasn't on an
encoded form of your email address there's little point in this debate
-- there's no substitution method that is going to make your address
magically appear.
Sometimes rules hit things they're not intended to, or things they are
intended to hit but in ham. That's why SA is a score based system. If
you find that this particular rule is causing you problems perhaps you
may want to consider assigning it a zero score.
Daryl
