David B Funk wrote on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 18:30:19 -0500 (CDT):
> So you see that the simple-minded sed stripping won't work here.
>
Only solution would be to define a set of tags where we just strip the
contents as well.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Se
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing I'm not clear on is whether any tests look at intermediate
> stages of decoding. That is, if a message has a base64'd HTML body, I
> think "rawbody" sees the base64 and "body" sees the rendered content,
> but nothing sees the un-rendered HTML.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:15:59AM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:47 AM
> Subject: OT: RE: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
>
>
> > What I dont u
"Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages
> thru the rendering core of Mozilla and extract the text as the
> viewer would see. This would eliminate all the attempts to obscure
> the message. And any message with screwed up text after
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Jim Ford wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:31:30PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > no "extra". There is no difference in text/plain or HTML text advertising, so
> > why should one try to to match in mixed text and markup? I think this has also
> > been discussed here some we
Jim Ford writes:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:31:30PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > no "extra". There is no difference in text/plain or HTML text advertising, so
> > why should one try to to match in mixed text and markup? I think this has also
> > been discussed here some weeks ago. Don't r
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Jim Ford wrote:
> If spam with eg 'penis enlargement' is
> slipping through as has previously been mentioned
No, spam in that format is not what has previously been mentioned.
The format that has been mentioned is
pengarbageis
which I speculate SA is translating to "pengar
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:31:30PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> no "extra". There is no difference in text/plain or HTML text advertising, so
> why should one try to to match in mixed text and markup? I think this has also
> been discussed here some weeks ago. Don't remember the outcome or if it
(Is this still "OT"?)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> > The only way to extract the text as the viewer would see it is to use
> > the renderer of the viewer's mail client [impossible, given that SA
> > generally runs before the message is even delivered]
>
> Well, I think one can do th
Jim Ford wrote on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:02:18 +0100:
> > 1. just ignore all extra markup or seemingly markup, so that you just get
> > the text
>
> It'd be easy enough to strip out nonsense like , wouldn't it?
>
Think so.
I just notice that my wording was somewhat ambiguous, I wanted to say:
> j
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:31:30PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> 1. just ignore all extra markup or seemingly markup, so that you just get
> the text
It'd be easy enough to strip out nonsense like , wouldn't it?
I would have thought it could be done by sed in .procmailrc. If spam using
such measu
- Original Message -
From: "Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: OT: RE: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages thru
the
> r
Bart Schaefer wrote on Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT):
> Possibly because Mozilla isn't written in Perl?
>
> Possibly because SA already has its own HTML renderer through which the
> messages are passed?
And possibly because Mozilla libaries are not necessarily installed on mail
machines?
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Bill wrote:
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages thru
> the rendering core of Mozilla
Possibly because Mozilla isn't written in Perl?
Possibly because SA already has its own HTML renderer through which the
messages are passed?
> and extract t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:42:00AM +0300, Jan Elmqvist Nielsen wrote:
>
>> How did this mail only get 1.3 by spamassassin?
>>
>> I am using mailscanner 4.21-9 and spama
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:42:00AM +0300, Jan Elmqvist Nielsen wrote:
> How did this mail only get 1.3 by spamassassin?
>
> I am using mailscanner 4.21-9 and spamassassin 2.55
Are you letting MailScanner do DNSBL/RBL lookups or SpamAssasssin?
Here with spamc/spamd 2.55 via postfix the mail scor
How did this mail only get 1.3 by spamassassin?
I am using mailscanner 4.21-9 and spamassassin 2.55
I can see that:
Expand Your Penis up to 20% Thicker
is in html this:
Expand Your Pen5t669is up to 20% Thicker
Jan Elmqvist Nielsen
--- Begin Message ---
NEVER AGAIN BE EMBARRASSED
ABOUT
YOUR
17 matches
Mail list logo
