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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo