Michael Bell wrote on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT):
> Base64 is used quite legitimately by Outlook, Notes, and GW, in
> international settings.
>
I partly disagree. You can use QP. I don't know how this works for Asian
characters, but it works well for European languages. Not to mention
--On Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:54 PM +1000 Robin Whittle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know of a single non-spam message which is sent this way?
What software, other than that of spammers, would generate such messages?
If these two questions draw a blank, then perhaps the score for th
Robin Whittle wrote on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:54:26 +1000:
> unless there really are legitimate messages being sent with
> base-64 encoding:
>
yes, there are, because some )()%&$% email programs, most notably Outlook
Express, offer this encoding for text messages.
And, yes, SA decodes them and appl
Justin Mason wrote:
> If you have a base64-encoded mail that SpamAssassin cannot see
> inside, it's a bug and should be filed as such at
> http://bugzilla.SpamAssassin.org/ .
I have done this, reporting the bug for SA 2.55:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2091
The problem wit
Robin Whittle wrote:
Thanks for this Abigail:
Abigail hasn't, but I have.
I would simply recommend that you raise the score in the
local.cf file for the SA test BASE64_ENC_TEXT to near or
above your minimum spam threshhold. I have yet to see a
*valid* email that is Base-64 encoded.
Indeed. From
Robin Whittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Its my impression that for these two reasons:
>
> 1 - SpamAssassin and maybe other filtering systems don't read the
> decoded contents of base-64 encoded material.
Wrong. It does.
> 2 - SpamAssassin scores this encoding only moderately positi
Robin Whittle said:
> 1 - SpamAssassin and maybe other filtering systems don't read the
> decoded contents of base-64 encoded material.
Certainly not the case. If you have a base64-encoded mail that
SpamAssassin cannot see inside, it's a bug and should be filed
as such at http://bugzilla.S
Abigail Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Apparently so; but it does correctly identify the email as being
> base-64 encoded. I would simply recommend that you raise the score in
> the local.cf file for the SA test BASE64_ENC_TEXT to near or above
> your minimum spam threshhold. I have yet to
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:54:26PM +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
> Thanks for this Abigail:
>
> > I would simply recommend that you raise the score in the
> > local.cf file for the SA test BASE64_ENC_TEXT to near or
> > above your minimum spam threshhold. I have yet to see a
> > *valid* email that
Thanks for this Abigail:
> I would simply recommend that you raise the score in the
> local.cf file for the SA test BASE64_ENC_TEXT to near or
> above your minimum spam threshhold. I have yet to see a
> *valid* email that is Base-64 encoded.
Indeed. From now on such messages have a one-way tick
RW> Does this mean that SpamAssassin is blind to the contents of base-64
RW> encoded HTML?
Apparently so; but it does correctly identify the email as
being base-64 encoded. I would simply recommend that you
raise the score in the local.cf file for the SA test
BASE64_ENC_TEXT to near or above your
11 matches
Mail list logo
