> Spammers are stupid, but spamware authors,
> well, on the whole i'd say they're intelligent but
> dysfunctional.
I guess I just have a semi-obsolete view of the world. To me, intelligence
put to bad use isn't necessarily intelligent--it's either sinister or
stupid. It's a bit like the worst-ca
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 06:26, Benjamin A. Shelton wrote:
> >
> >
> >It does. When someone makes something, it is natural instinct for them
> >to want to test it, see if it works.
> >
>
> I would certainly agree with this. However, remember that Microsoft
> recently released a "patch" that "fixed"
It does. When someone makes something, it is natural instinct for them
to want to test it, see if it works.
I would certainly agree with this. However, remember that Microsoft
recently released a "patch" that "fixed" certain issues with their IPsec
implementation (I believe that was what it wa
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 03:51, Benjamin A. Shelton wrote:
> >
> >
> >I can't believe a spamware writer would be smart enough to create
> >proxy-raping spamware and yet dumb enough to not send himself a test
> >message with it to see if it works.
> >
> If he's dumb enough to spam in the first place,
I can't believe a spamware writer would be smart enough to create
proxy-raping spamware and yet dumb enough to not send himself a test
message with it to see if it works.
If he's dumb enough to spam in the first place, does this *really*
surprise you? :-)
--
Benjamin A. Shelton
"What do you m
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 02:53, Justin Mason wrote:
> Yorkshire Dave said:
>
> > Essentially on the same subject, I just received one spam with an html
> > comment inserted every 5 characters, which resulted in an unrenderable
> > page of BLE BORDER=0>
> > tag-inside-tag type stupidity, even the imag
Yorkshire Dave said:
> Essentially on the same subject, I just received one spam with an html
> comment inserted every 5 characters, which resulted in an unrenderable
> page of BLE BORDER=0>
> tag-inside-tag type stupidity, even the image and web-bug urls had
> comment tags in, wouldn't render in
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:55, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> using html comments? i don't think so. comments would more likely be
> in a scipting language and be // /* or #
>
I can't even count the number of times I've seen or . I've had
one email with annotated html attached since this thread starte
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Vanasco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] As seen on ...
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:00 PM, Pierre
using html comments? i don't think so. comments would more likely be
in a scipting language and be // /* or #
in any event, if there were between a couple of web designers -- the
addresses would easily be whitelisted
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 04:28 PM, Yorkshire Dave wrote:
On Thu, 200
Hi Pierre,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Pierre Bacquet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am receiving a lot of SPAM for HGH for whatever including the
> following recurring sentences :
>
> As seen on NBC, CBS, and even Oprah ...
> As reported on in the New England Journal of Medicine ...
Try setting:
required
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 20:41, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> having any html comments at all pretty much signifies spam
>
or normal email between a couple of web designers.
--
Yorkshire Dave
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attenti
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:00 PM, Pierre Bacquet wrote:
* some high scores when there are too many HTML comments (with
meaningless
contents) or very long ones made of consecutive chars without any
space.
having any html comments at all pretty much signifies spam
do spamassassin rules wo
Pierre Bacquet wrote:
I am receiving a lot of SPAM for HGH for whatever including the
following recurring sentences :
Software versions :-)
--
Antoine Le Belge
Working to get a life
http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/conference.htm
http://www.billy.demon.nl
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
14 matches
Mail list logo
