<P>I am sure there are some overlapping tests.  It may be time to tidy things up.  Thank you for the suggestions.</P> <P>Gordon</P>

<P>I have an extensive content control rule-set but sometimes it seems that words get past it without being weighted.  In a recent instance, the following line was contained in the body of a message (as read in the Message Source).:</P> <P>LowPrice pharmacy with Big selection on hot demanding meds</P> <P>I have two rules:</P><FONT size=1> <P>if BODY HAS </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>"</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=1>meds</FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>"</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=1> weight </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>51</P> <P></FONT></FONT></SPAN>and</P><FONT size=1> <P>if BODY HAS </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>"</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=1>pharmacy</FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>"</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT size=1> ob weight </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA>51</P></FONT></FONT></SPAN> <P>So far as I can see, the offending message line should result in a weighting of 102, adequately high enough to cause this message to be recognized as spam by my filtering rules, which delete any message with the appended header X-UC-Weight:*.  The message is showing no X-UC-Weight: header at all.</P> <P>Any suggestions as to why this might be happening would be appreciated.</P> <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><FONT face="Courier New" size=1><SPAN lang=EN-CA><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gordon</FONT></P></FONT></FONT></SPAN>

<p>Hi Gordon,</p><p> this may be an obvious question, but have you checked that the rules before the ones you've listed are OK. I.E. if a prior rule has incorrect syntax then it will miss all the rules after it. </p><p>Try using the  syntax checker.</p><p>Dave. </p>

<P>Hi Dave - Yes, the syntax checks out fine.  I seem to recall that there is a limit to the size of the rules file that can be handled by the internal editor.  I don't know whether this is an issue and whether there is any warning if the limit is exceeded.</P> <P>Gordon</P>

<p>Yes, you're right, I can't remember the limit (poss 30K) but I think the latest version overcomes the problem try installing that.</p><p>Dave </p>

<P>Dave - I'm running 4.62 so, if it's been fixed, I should be OK.</P> <P>Gordon</P>

<p>Did you check the .cnm file for the message to see if the text actually appears as you quoted it? In some cases the text is heavily rearranged by strange HTML tags, or is in fact in an image that is included in the message or linked by it.</p><p>/Rolf </p>

<P>Rolf - Yes, what I quoted was the message source (Properties/Details/Message Source) in Outlook Express.  I have also checked the .cnm file and it contains the same information.</P> <P>I think what I will try next is to manufacture a message with the same From/To information and the line that should be triggered the rule, and see what happens.  It obviously won't be a complete copy of the original message headers/body, but it may point to something something if the rule doesn't detect it.</P> <P>Gordon</P>

<p>Try moving that rule to the top of the list, see if that has any effect.</p><p>Also, do you have multiple CC tests? I seem to recall them not being cumulative (ie. later test results override earlier ones) </p>