> > > I use the SARE rules and have been asked to explain why a certain email > > > got > > > caught as spam. > > > > IMPORTANT: Due to Ninjas being busy with lives, wives & hockey matches, SARE > > rules aren't being updated.
> Thanks for the info, really should pay more attention to the list, I get my > SARE updates (I guess there's not been any for sometime) from openprotects > sa-update channel. You should have a look at the original source, too. Generally, as well as to understand what specific rule-sets are for. > I guess as the rules are no longer maintained their usefulness will become > less and less and perhaps increase fp's? - Any rules effectiveness tends to decrease, as they are aging. FPs might or might not happen, though. That pretty much depends on the nature of the rule. In a case like this, re-assigned IPs quickly can invalidate a rule -- and of course even result in FPs. > I couldn't find when they stopped > being maintained but the timestamps on the cf files is jun 17 2008 - is > there a general consensus that they should not be used now or our people > still finding them useful (they still seem to catch a large amount here) Last update 2006-05-21. Also mentioned in the cf file on your system! http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm#header AFAIK, there is no general consensus. Some still find them to be effective. However, as with ALL third-party rules and to some extend even with the stock rules -- you need to monitor their performance for your particular mail in-stream yourself. guenther -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
