> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*snip*
>
> Yes. URI will be more efficient, too.
>
> - --j.
LOL, it figures it would come from you ;) You said the magic words, "more
efficient". And just like that *BOOM* 1.60 is up!
At least it wasn't an FP
TECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:32 PM
> To: 'Chris Santerre'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Being BigEvil inspired...
>
>
> Chris,
>
> I updated my bigevil.cf file this morning and I haven't seen
> a hit on it
> since.
>
> At 02:15 PM 12/5/2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> > >> > But incoming messages encoded in Base64 containg links with
> > >> the above
> > >> > domains are not recognized ?? Why ??
> > >> one word: rawbody
> > >>
> > >> LER
> > >>
> > >
> > > OUCH! That makes a lot of sense. Hmmm.Shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Larry Rosenman writes:
>>> one word: rawbody
>>>
>>> LER
>>
>> OUCH! That makes a lot of sense. Hmmm.Should I change bigevil to
>> URI???
>Dunno, I'd ask for some SA-Developers opinions.
Yes. URI will be more efficient, too.
- --j.
-BE
> > >
> > > But incoming messages encoded in Base64 containg links with
> > the above
> > > domains are not recognized ?? Why ??
> > one word: rawbody
> >
> > LER
> >
>
> OUCH! That makes a lot of sense. Hmmm.Should I change bigevil to
> URI???
>
A related question: when you scan the mess
At 02:15 PM 12/5/2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> > But incoming messages encoded in Base64 containg links with
>> the above
>> > domains are not recognized ?? Why ??
>> one word: rawbody
>>
>> LER
>>
>
> OUCH! That makes a lot of sense. Hmmm.Should I change bigevil to
> URI???
Dunno, I'd as
L PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: 'Brian Ipsen'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Being BigEvil inspired...
>
>
> I'm predicting you are not running 2.60 of SA? Older versions
> don't catch
> the BASE64.
>
&g
At 01:58 PM 12/5/2003, Brian Ipsen wrote:
But incoming messages encoded in Base64 containg links with the above
domains are not recognized ?? Why ??
Any chance the particular B-64 messages are multipart with one part being
QP and the other part being base64?
get_decoded_body_text_array has this c
--On Friday, December 05, 2003 14:16:56 -0500 Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Rosenman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:04 PM
To: Brian Ipsen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Being BigEvil inspired...
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Rosenman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: Brian Ipsen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Being BigEvil inspired...
>
>
>
>
> --On Friday, December 05, 2003 19:58:3
Hi,
> I'm predicting you are not running 2.60 of SA? Older versions don't catch
> the BASE64.
Fom a tagged message:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.4 required=5.0 tests=BIZ_TLD,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,
DCC_CHECK,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_02,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_BASE64_TEXT,
MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET,MIME_H
I'm predicting you are not running 2.60 of SA? Older versions don't catch
the BASE64.
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Ipsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Being BigEv
--On Friday, December 05, 2003 19:58:37 +0100 Brian Ipsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Inspired by the BigEvil list I've created my own little file in in
/etc/mail/spamassassin like this;
rawbody SpamLinks_1
/\b(?:rxwarehouseusa\.com|rxmoreusa\.com|self-entertainment\.biz|herbal9\
.bi z|only
Hi,
Inspired by the BigEvil list I've created my own little file in in
/etc/mail/spamassassin like this;
rawbody SpamLinks_1
/\b(?:rxwarehouseusa\.com|rxmoreusa\.com|self-entertainment\.biz|herbal9\.bi
z|onlyzbestout.\biz|yunoz\.biz|naturalherbal\.biz)\b/i
describe SpamLinks_1Generated Sp
14 matches
Mail list logo
