Maybe they'll start writting in Middle English to target that untapped market
of english lit majors/grads.
On Friday 30 January 2004 08:55 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Today I got an interesting form of obfuscation, apparently to avoid
> antidrug.cf.
>
> I'm not sure wether to bother with adding rul
Yes but if you start comparing prices between companies that offer basic
no-frills consumer DSL as well as "business class" DSL where the only
difference is no blocked ports and maybe a handfull of IP's, you'll notice
Speakeasy's Residential no-frills consumer DSL with dynamic IP starts at
abou
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 03:23 pm, Rose, Bobby wrote:
> Why even allow javascript embedded emails?
>
One could say the same about HTML emails.
Think about the target MUA of spam; Outlook Express. This type of spam would
only work on O/OE or any MUA that used a JS capable HTML renderer to displ
This is a new one to me, seems the spammers are starting to learn javascript
now. I suppose a rule for detecting document.write() usage could be used as a
spam-sign.
--- spam body ---
registry = new Array(182,
179,76,60,26,233,201,167,222,59,117,
232,106,241,81,111,6,134,45,149,103,
231,156,105
On Thursday 20 November 2003 03:02 pm, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> I can find it. I'm talking about going from 10 seconds to process a
> message without bayes and is now up to a minute to do it with Bayes in.
Could you give some specs on cpu speed, amount of memory, drives (ide/scsi/
rpm), maximum n
This functionality already exists in several milters that call or integrate SA
directly, namely MIMEDefang, the various Amavis based milters, IVS Milter,
and MailScanner. However if such were to be built into spamc it would have to
much more flexable than simple yes/no deletion (what about those
On Monday 17 November 2003 01:29 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Brian Godette wrote:
> > On Monday 17 November 2003 11:22 am, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > > :0 c : $HOME/.sa$LOCKEXT
> > >
> > > * ^X-Spam-Checker-Version:.*-$SAVERSION
> &
On Monday 17 November 2003 11:22 am, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> My solution is this little bit of procmail:
> :0 c : $HOME/.sa$LOCKEXT
>
> * ^X-Spam-Checker-Version:.*-$SAVERSION
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes.*autolearn=ham
>
> | sa-learn --forget
>
> Replace $SAVERSION with whatever appears in your version_
On Monday 17 November 2003 08:16 am, Michael V. Sokolov wrote:
> I've noticed message with such headers:
>
> X-Spam-Flag: YES
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
> antispam X-Spam-Level: **
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99 autolearn=ha
Your system is being killed by Linux's OOM killer. The OOM killer in 2.4
series doesn't appear to be all that bright and I have had it kill init in
the past which results in what you describe (pings but services down).
You basically have two options, either add more memory or limit the number of
You know that's implying that spammers as "bright" as the average
script-kiddie? Isn't that being a bit generous?
/tongue in cheek
On Tuesday 29 July 2003 03:36 pm, Justin Mason wrote:
> yes -- now and again.
>
> They're not really from Korea and China -- those are open proxies
> or rooted machi
From: "Fox Flanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 08:30 am, Fox Flanders wrote:
> We need a prounouncability test of the sender addresses. If it has a bunch
> of ixf38jk3 crud in it, it is more likely to be spam.
>
The irony is astounding.
--
http://www.claraocr.org/
http://freshmeat.net/
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay
Get office equipment for less on eBay!
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5
___
Spamassassin-tal
13 matches
Mail list logo
