Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-15 Thread Jason Haar
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:26:13PM +0100, Maxime Ritter wrote: > What I also figured out is that Outlook is unable to send a HTML mail > without plain text. That's why I wrote this rule : Not true at all. Outlook (via Exchange - pretty standard [the standard?!?! ;-)]) can have it's Internet Mail

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-15 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 21:22, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:43:35PM -0500, Robert J. Accettura wrote: > > Spammers tend to use both HTML/TEXT since it still serves it's purpose > > as spam regardless of the client used. The exception being the ones > > that use really bad s

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-15 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:39 -0500: > Problem is, outside this techie world, life isn't like that. > Well, but life is like that most spam is HTML (either only or text+HTML) and most legitimate mail is NOT HTML. I've not seen any proof against that yet. As Theo states

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Robert J. Accettura
EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rick Macdougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html Mozilla can send HTML only email, and will if it recieves only HTML. I have several people in my address

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Jeremy Nixon
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote: > I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score > higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did > not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the > exception of n

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Robert J. Accettura
gt; Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html Most popular email clients are starting to default to HTML mail. Considering how widely used it is these days it's really starting to push legitimate emails towards the edge. The average legitimate email

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 07:07:16PM -0500, Rick Macdougall wrote: > Hi, > > Can you name me one legitimate email client that sends HTML 'ONLY' emails? Some newsletters are sent in HTML only. -- Duncan Findlay --- This SF.NET email is sponsor

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Rick Macdougall
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html Most popular email clients are starting to default to HTML mail. Considering how widely used it is these days it's really starting to push legitimate

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:43:35 -0500: > it > will become more common to send just HTML mail since it's quicker, and > smaller in size. > gulp ??? Adding 1k to a normally 0,1k mail and then removing 0,1k is "smaller in size"? > Relying on mail format is silly > Well be

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Robert J. Accettura
Most popular email clients are starting to default to HTML mail.  Considering how widely used it is these days it's really starting to push legitimate emails towards the edge.  The average legitimate email today seems to be about 3.0... and those are emails made in Outlook, Mozilla, and other p

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Robert J. Accettura wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:46:02 -0500: > Why focus and rely so heavily on what we > know will be causing this, rather than work to perfect spam detection in > ways that ONLY spammers can be detected. > Why throw away one proven method which catches more spam than all the

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Michael Moncur wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:30:16 -0700: > I rarely receive legitimate HTML-only email either, > I'd like to extend this to "I rarely receive legitimate HTML email" can we have CTYPE_HTML und BODY_CONTAINS_HTML rules or something like this? (some spammers simply don't advertise

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Maxime Ritter wrote on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:26:13 +0100: > http://www.netlibre.info/~airmax/user_prefs > Thanks, interesting stuff! Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:46:02PM -0500, Robert J. Accettura wrote: > 1. Just posed a bunch of rule ideas. Should keep you busy for a while > ;). Deductions mostly at this point. But I plan to work on some good > spam detection ideas later tonight. If you can do me a favor -- go back to the

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Robert J. Accettura
1.  Just posed a bunch of rule ideas.  Should keep you busy for a while ;).  Deductions mostly at this point.  But I plan to work on some good spam detection ideas later tonight. Theo Van Dinter wrote: It depends on your client. I've seen 30 byte text messages take 4k in HTML. But why

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:43:35PM -0500, Robert J. Accettura wrote: > out there. The reality is as more clients become HTML mail clients, it > will become more common to send just HTML mail since it's quicker, and > smaller in size. One should also note, that all HTML capable email It depend

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Robert J. Accettura
Several other mail clients can be set to reply with HTML only, if it receives HTML.  I use Mozilla mail which can operate as such.  If someone sends me HTML mail, without being prompted, I will reply in HTML mode (only HTML) as to preserve formatting.  If I haven't emailed the person before, an

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Justin Mason
Maxime Ritter said: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote: > > I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score > > higher. > > It did also surprise me... > > What I also figured out is that Outlook is unable to send a HTML mail > without plain tex

RE: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Michael Moncur
Ed Weinberg wrote: > I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score > higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did > not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the > exception of newsletters, that does not include plain te

Re: [SAtalk] mail with ONLY html

2003-01-14 Thread Maxime Ritter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, Ed Weinberg wrote: > I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score > higher. It did also surprise me... What I also figured out is that Outlook is unable to send a HTML mail without plain text. That's why I wrote this rule : me