On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:19 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote:
> RE- 'digging' ... I have, but SA seems to have come along a fair bit
> since SA2.5 days, hence the word 'easiest'. Maybe 'best' would have
> been a better choice of word.
These sub-BL listings still have been used in 3.1.x, no need to dig into
the ancient age of 2.5x. As you said yourself, "a release or two ago".
Why do you now bring up that version?
There is a bug about disabling them in the SA bugzilla, including
discussion, reasoning and code.
The rules even *do* exist in the latest 3.3 rule-set. They just happen
to not score.
> Re- risk. Thing with risk is that 'mileage varies' ... I can live with
> it in context of how I wish to use lists, but thanks for pointing that
> out.
>
> Thanks for your time in replying, and further appols for annoying you
> so much.
Uhm, did I really give the impression you'd have been annoying? Nah, not
my intention.
However, I got the impression you do not actually realize the
suitability of these tests to identify spam. Varying mileage or not. Did
you have a look at recent mass-check results? Kind of missing spam hits
at all.
So, no, I guess I'd better not post these trivial rules in public. The
above hints are a dead give-away already.
--
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; }}}
