[SAtalk] obfuscation and ratware tags

Please have a look at the attached message. Some interesting features: "X-Mailer: PHP" "X-VXMX-Bounce: 00045176001-21-6159742-13" ".marquee{ color: #fff }" " Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith "It's the sound of a satellite saying, 'get me down!'" -Shriekback --- Begin Message ---

[SAtalk] [Fwd: New release Cheboman is wildy entertaining]

as a comment, followed by the HTML version of the message. This way, the text/plain section is empty, but non-MIME mailers will still see the text while spam filters will mostly ignore the comment. Heh, sneaky. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Senior Systems Engineer and Toolsmith &quo

Re: [SAtalk] help? SA is working, but SCORES in user_prefs arebeing ignored :-(

On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 13:14, R Blake wrote: > debug: razor2 check timed out after 10 secs. > debug: Razor2 results: spam? 0 highest cf score: 0 > tests=DATE_MISSING,MISSING_HEADERS,NO_REAL_NAME Yep, looks right. SA was unable to contact R2, so it scored the mail without using it. The question

Re: [SAtalk] question about mailscanner spamcheck rules

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 08:21, Madacs Panni wrote: > Hi Spamassassin Users! > > We use Mailscanner(v4.13) with Spamassassin(v2.44) for a few weeks. > I haven't read all of messages on the list, sorry if these questions > were answered earlier. > > 1. > A simple question first. :) > What does SPAM

Re: [SAtalk] SA rpm install dependency problems

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 14:23, Mike Vanecek wrote: > > su -c "perl -MCPAN -e shell" [...] > > install CPAN > > [it does its thing] > > install Term::ReadLine::Gnu > > [no time to get coffee, but a short wait] > > reload cpan > > [optionally update "install LWP::UserAgent"

Re: [SAtalk] no more headers?

On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 18:47, Matt Kettler wrote: > As a bit more in-depth response, the first part of the README file covers > this in detail This is one of the largest problems with any package-management system (even one as loose as CPAN). Most of the people out there don't even have to read th

Re: [SAtalk] Of authentication, encryption and headers

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 11:37, Matt Kettler wrote: > This is true.. however it also assumes the spammer knows that you are > checking for this.. It's very hard to spoof something when you don't know > what the checks are.. Security through obscurity doesn't work very well when I'm considering cont

Re: [SAtalk] Interesting suggestion for an anti-spam solution

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 04:45, Robert Fleming wrote: > I replied to him. He's neither original nor correct on this point. His scheme can be reduced to "create a barrier to entry for sending mail". His particular scheme involves micro-payment

Re: [SAtalk] Postfix - Don't Scan Outbound

filtering internal user 1's message to internal user 2, but you can fix that with a more_spam rule. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This message granted to the Public Domain in 2023. Fight the DMCA and copyright extension! http://eldred.cc/ --

Re: [SAtalk] Received: from bowser (bowser.slooff.net[192.168.0.3])

t? For reference, I set auto_learn to 1 for testing purposes. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This message granted to the Public Domain in 2023. Fight the DMCA and copyright extension! http://eldred.cc/ --- This SF.NET emai

Re: [SAtalk] New kind of spam?

sts are true. It would be interesting to see what kind of score that test would be assigned -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This message granted to the Public Domain in 2023. Fight the DMCA and copyright extension! --- This SF.

[SAtalk] [Fwd: Information DecoFinder]

e and you could have something like the YELLING tests where you detect 2, 4, 8 and 16 of the same URL-prefix separately. Again, not sure of the overhead. -- Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This message (c) 2003 by Aaron Sherman, and granted to the Public Domain in 2023. Fight the DMCA an