Or perhaps you can use the existing HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE rule?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew
Sent: 15 November 2003 22:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Test Suggestion
HTML_FONT_COLOR_WHITE
I've noticed that some spamm
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:58:55PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Yeech. Exempting broken MUAs is getting old. *sigh*
Well, I certainly have never done a systematic study, but, is it worth
it at all??
Every single false positive I've ever recieved, tripped over because of
an MUA test. And not
linus larsson wrote:
>>> I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
>>> Maybe it should be rated.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find
>> lots of mails without it.
Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:52:42PM +0100, linus larsson wrote:
> > I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
> > Maybe it should be rated.
>
> Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find lots
> of mails
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:52:42PM +0100, linus larsson wrote:
> I noticed a lot of spams have the header "Mime-Version: *.*" missing
> Maybe it should be rated.
Mime-Version isn't a required header, so I'm not surprised to find lots
of mails without it.
In a quick check of my corpus:
Spam: 1641
