At 7/28/03 06:30 AM , Chris Santerre wrote:
Yeah, I had some reports that these rules would hit a few things. The only
way I see to counter it, is with some negative rules. This was the best way
I found to grab the random characters. For instance a negative Ezra rule :)
What about placing \b before
-Original Message-
> From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:24 PM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: 'Andrea Riela'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[2]: [SAtalk] spam funny
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SH
Bob Menschel writes:
>AL> Hmm, I understand the idea now. I will argue about positive score
>AL> for unknown signatures, but negative score for signatures in the
>AL> my ~/.gnupg is good
>
>I'd like to see the ability to run such tests. And following SA
>practices, each would be a test with its ow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Alexander,
Friday, July 25, 2003, 10:37:51 PM, you wrote:
>> The point is, checking the PGP signature is a good way of finding
>> out if someone is supposed to be writing to you. If there is a
>> recognizable PGP sig, it counts very well (e.g.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Chris,
Friday, July 25, 2003, 1:55:03 PM, you wrote:
CS> # These next six are VERY INTERESTING. I'm very proud of these
CS> babies.
CS> # They help tag and find the random characters spammers put in. Works
CS> GREAT
CS> rawbody MY_OBFUZ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Daniel,
Friday, July 25, 2003, 1:41:54 PM, you wrote:
DC> Here is a thought: We could test for n consecutive consonants. The
DC> more consecutive consotants, the more likely it is to be spam.
Sounds like a good idea.
DC> body MY_CONSON
