Mailing List Archive: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad?

[OT] Why is *ro?d* bad?

Feb 20, 2004, 6:30 AM

Post #1 of 5 (661 views)

I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I sent blocked
by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it matched this rule.

Matching Subject: *ro?d*

The Subject was:

Policy Post 10.04: CDT Urges FCC to Protect Internet In Defining DTV
Broadcast Flag

What word are they trying to catch with this rule? They of course
caught the word Broadcast. Thanks, Michael

--
Michael Clark, Webmaster
Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
voice: 202-637-9800
http://www.cdt.org/

Join our Activist Network! Your participation can make a difference!
http://www.cdt.org/join/

Re: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad? [ In reply to ]

mkettler_sa at comcast

Feb 20, 2004, 6:53 AM

Post #2 of 5 (637 views)

Permalink

At 08:30 AM 2/20/04 -0500, Michael Clark wrote:
>I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I sent blocked
>by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it matched this rule.
>
>Matching Subject: *ro?d*

Sounds like something some foolish (albeit well intending) sysadmin added
without thinking about the wide range of strings that will match.

Then again, I've seen commercial scanners contain *anal* out of the box...
heaven forbid you should work with analog electronics or try to analyze
anything.

Re: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad? [ In reply to ]

beltane at beltane

Feb 20, 2004, 8:57 AM

Post #3 of 5 (629 views)

Permalink

I had to check. I only got down to "adirondack mountains" in the first
10 of 764 hits. This would be a good example of a poorly written rule.

Bryan Britt
Beltane Web Services

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICQ: 53037451
Bryan L. Britt 501-327-8558
Beltane Web Services, Conway, AR http://www.beltane.com
~~~~~~~~~~Support Private Communications on the Internet~~~~~~~~~~

----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:53:18 -0500, Matt Kettler <mkettler_sa@comcast.net> wrote:

> At 08:30 AM 2/20/04 -0500, Michael Clark wrote:
> >I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I sent blocked
> >by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it matched this rule.
> >
> >Matching Subject: *ro?d*
>
> Sounds like something some foolish (albeit well intending) sysadmin added
> without thinking about the wide range of strings that will match.
>
> Then again, I've seen commercial scanners contain *anal* out of the box...
> heaven forbid you should work with analog electronics or try to analyze
> anything.

RE: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad? [ In reply to ]

csanterre at MerchantsOverseas

Feb 20, 2004, 9:08 AM

Post #4 of 5 (634 views)

Permalink

I like this rule! It will tag emails talking about Arod and the Yankees. I
sure don't want to hear about that any more!

See you in the spring!!!! Go Boston!!!!! :P

--Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Britt [mailto:beltane@beltane.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:57 AM
> To: spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad?
>
>
> I had to check. I only got down to "adirondack mountains"
> in the first
> 10 of 764 hits. This would be a good example of a poorly
> written rule.
>
> Bryan Britt
> Beltane Web Services
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICQ: 53037451
> Bryan L. Britt 501-327-8558
> Beltane Web Services, Conway, AR http://www.beltane.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~Support Private Communications on the Internet~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> ----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:53:18 -0500, Matt Kettler
> <mkettler_sa@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > At 08:30 AM 2/20/04 -0500, Michael Clark wrote:
> > >I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I
> sent blocked
> > >by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it
> matched this rule.
> > >
> > >Matching Subject: *ro?d*
> >
> > Sounds like something some foolish (albeit well intending)
> sysadmin added
> > without thinking about the wide range of strings that will match.
> >
> > Then again, I've seen commercial scanners contain *anal*
> out of the box...
> > heaven forbid you should work with analog electronics or
> try to analyze
> > anything.
>
>

Re: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad? [ In reply to ]

srujan at iicindia

Feb 24, 2004, 2:18 AM

Post #5 of 5 (627 views)

Permalink

Its not at all a good way to write rules based on a single word.
Better have rules based on phrases.

Srujan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Clark" <mclark@cdtmail.org>
To: <spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: [OT] Why is *ro?d* bad?

> I know this is off-topic, but I got an email message I sent blocked
> by Symantec_AntiVirus_for_SMTP_Gateways because it matched this rule.
>
> Matching Subject: *ro?d*
>
> The Subject was:
>
> Policy Post 10.04: CDT Urges FCC to Protect Internet In Defining DTV
> Broadcast Flag
>
> What word are they trying to catch with this rule? They of course
> caught the word Broadcast. Thanks, Michael
>
> --
> Michael Clark, Webmaster
> Center for Democracy and Technology
> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> voice: 202-637-9800
> http://www.cdt.org/
>
> Join our Activist Network! Your participation can make a difference!
> http://www.cdt.org/join/
>