[antispam-f] Re: Rule hitting 50% of spam
- From: Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 08:39:17 GMT
In a recent message Mark J <Mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In message <4e81b394a8steve.pampling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Steven Pampling <steve.pampling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 06 Nov, Mark J <Mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > In message <8baa9c814e.Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>> > > Defer Subject: = Re: *
>> > > And References: -
>> > >
>> > > detects this. A 'References:' header should be included in replies.
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > That would have caught emails from my bank, my solicitor, and the
>> > Royal Mail :-(
>>
>> I've yet to see a genuine instance of any of those using e-mail (except
>> possibly a bank replying to a complaint)
>>
>
> The above three were perfectly genuine. Add to the list one from
> Norman Lamb, MP...
>
> There is the additional risk that replies to webform enquiries often
> seem to use "Re:" without being replies in the same way. Presumably
> they wouldn't be expected to have a "References:" line, and would be
> caught. Then there are the "Re: Your recent enquiry" type replies,
> which again, aren't true replies...
>
Oh well :-(
But I think that it may still be useful to use it in combination
rules.
--
Dave
Keep GMT all year
Other related posts:
