Abigail Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, you have said that SA parses out the Base64 comment, but the
> post that started this discussion came from someone who had a heavily
> porn-laden piece of spam come through, and their SA failed to register
> any tests on the body.
A sample size
Hello Daniel,
Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 11:17:06 PM, you wrote:
DQ> Well, the rule (renamed in 2.60-cvs) does false positive about 0.03% of
DQ> the time:
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think the nice thing
about SA is that it is user customizable - a false positive
rate of more than 0.
Hello Robin,
RW> Indeed. From now on such messages have a one-way ticket to
RW> the spam pit:
RW> score BASE64-ENC-TEXT 100.0
Hmm, given Alain's comments, it might be better to simply
assign a score close to the default spam thresshold for your
system, for reasons I will detail below.
RW>
AF> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:54:26PM +1000, Robin Whittle
AF> wrote:
>> Thanks for this Abigail:
>>
>> > I have yet to see a
>> > *valid* email that is Base-64 encoded.
>>
AF> Lucky you. I see quite a few. The crappy e-mail client "Incredimail"
AF> that is unfortunately quite popular likes t
