Hi Mark,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Ritchie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code
>
>
>
>
> Do you really think it would be a problem if we found m
Thanks Jennifer! I should have know you would be on top of this.
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Jennifer Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:11 AM
> To: 'Larry Gilson'; 'Mark Ritchie';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk]
> Yes, this would be possible.
>
> describe MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAGMY: Excessive HTML Tags
> rawbody MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG/<[bi]><\/[bi]>/i
> scoreMY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG4.0
>
> Backhair did not hit because the number of characters within the tag
is
> fewer than 6. Creating rules to match fewer
>
> Do you really think it would be a problem if we found more
> than 3 instances of in each email to mark it as spam?
> Maybe I could just score it lower per instance, say .2
>
> There were 58 instances of in this email and 63
> instances of .
>
A test that counted .1 per instance in a me
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark
Ritchie
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code
I've added the popcorn, blackhair, and weeds rules a while back, but
I've not
Something like this should work, although I am still learning so feel free
to correct.
rawbody T_OBFU_EMPTY_TAGS /<(i|b|u)><\/\1>/i
score T_OBFU_EMPTY_TAGS 0.1
The intended result would be any HTML , or tag followed
immediately by a closing tag, with no intervening characters.
I did find a s
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:35 AM
To: Mark Ritchie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Exessive HTML Code
Yes, this would be possible.
describe MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAGMY: Excessive HTML Tags
rawbody MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG/<[bi]><\/[bi]>/i
scoreMY_RBDY_EXS
Yes, this would be possible.
describe MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAGMY: Excessive HTML Tags
rawbody MY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG/<[bi]><\/[bi]>/i
scoreMY_RBDY_EXSV_TAG4.0
Backhair did not hit because the number of characters within the tag is
fewer than 6. Creating rules to match fewer than 6 characters
Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, as you can see the trick here to fool spamassassin is the
> and tags.
I don't think that's what's fooling SA. SA strips all that
stuff out before looking for phrases. The problem is the lack
of phrases to trigger on.
> Would it be possible to
