John Rudd wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Derek Harding wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Um, how exactly will they fail?
How about a nice black & white speckled image with red text on it?
Explain to me how you think it will fail?
So you're dropping three bits? White is FF, Black 00,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
a friend of mine is using outlook "stationary" with a logo.
This would hit the rule ... I am not sure whether many senders do that, however
Stationery and image sig files are the two main false positives that I
can think of. However I think those uses are fairly r
>> Rob Mangiafico wrote:
>> > Anyone else find this to be a good rule to catch these image stock spams
>> > without too much collateral damage?
>> >
>> >
>> After writing this I did some checks on the SA public corpus. The rule
>> didn't hit on any of the hard ham. It didn't hit much of the sp
Mr Butler, with all due respect go pound sand. You've convinced me that
we should kick the UN out of the United States so that idiots like you
do not spam mailing lists like this.
You're an fscking idiot.
{`,'}
- Original Message -
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, A
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Derek Harding wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
Um, how exactly will they fail?
How about a nice black & white speckled image with red text on it?
Explain to me how you think it will fail?
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:24 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Direct deliver is not evil, and the current fad of blocking DHCP
assigned
IPs had not cut down on spam one little bit.
It actually blocks a ton of spam in my world.
> MAPI. [is]..implemented over DCE/RPC (i.e. LAN-only).
Maybe a nit... but technically not LAN-only using ncacn_http.
--Sandy
> Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way.
POP3 XTND XMIT submission extensions already "polluted" POP3 many
years ago, supported by many thousands of servers (tho' not
necessarily enabled).
--Sandy
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:49, John D. Hardin wrote:
> Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way. The problem
> can be easily solved with no changes to existing tools if the ISP
> blocks all outbound SMTP from their dynamic client ranges and requires
> SMTP AUTH via their mail serv
John Rudd wrote:
Um, how exactly will they fail?
How about a nice black & white speckled image with red text on it?
BTW I think the OCR approach is unlikely to succeed due to processing
constraints.
Derek
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:20, Marc Perkel wrote:
> As Secretary General Kofi Annan said, "In its short life,
Oh, right, DO START with a little ass kissing
That always helps. The fact the he can't remember saying it, or even having a
coherent thought on the subject in his entire life nee
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:32 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:54 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email
Nonsense.
...is there an echo in here
4a) maybe generalize #4 to include various other RFC issues (matching
PTR and A records is an RFC requirement, after all), such as the things
tracked at RFC-Ignorant
Less feasible, too many players.
How about: domain registrars are required to block any domain they
have registered
Rob Mangiafico wrote:
Anyone else find this to be a good rule to catch these image stock spams
without too much collateral damage?
After writing this I did some checks on the SA public corpus. The rule
didn't hit on any of the hard ham. It didn't hit much of the spam either
since very litt
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 12:41, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I think that end users shouldn't be using SMTP at all. I think SPTM
> should be a server to server protocol and that the POP/IMAP protocol
> should be modified to allow sending outgoing email over the same
> connection that mail comes in over.
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 11:56, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance Forum
> of the United Nations.
What's the point of that?
Unless there's a kickback in it for Koffie's son, its just a waste of effort,
like virtually every thing else the UN doe
Yes, but given the opportunity to issue a useless proclamation over such an
innane topic; how can they possibly resist!
RO
- Original Message -
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: What changes would you make to stop spam? - United
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:54 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>> Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> > ...is there an echo in here? ;)
>
> Having a
On Aug 1, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
2) to combat the "images with subtle differences", develop a checksum
method that ignores the lower (3 or 4 bits? out of 8 bits) of each
color channel. That way you get what is essentially a very high
Won't work. White on black and black on w
A little bit sorry for the top-post ... but .. Re: Kofi Annan's quote
from the post dated today at around 6:20 PM PST:
"The problem has risen to a level requiring that the United Nations be
aware of the issue and to take steps to address the problem.*"*
I simply do not agree. The U.N. has far
2) to combat the "images with subtle differences", develop a checksum
method that ignores the lower (3 or 4 bits? out of 8 bits) of each color
channel. That way you get what is essentially a very high
Won't work. White on black and black on white are both quite readable, and
will fail the ab
On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:54 PM, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email
Nonsense.
...is there an echo in here? ;)
Having also said the same thing ... Doesn't part of Microsoft's
extension to IMAP
On Aug 1, 2006, at 6:31 PM, John Rudd wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 18:16, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
Not directly stopping spam, but helping to close holes that are
manipulated by spammers, and make it easier to track them:
1) Require Virus Scanning on all SMT
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
> From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email
>
> Nonsense. Turn off non-authenticated SMTP except from recognized
> ISPs. Force everyone sending email to send it using SMTPAUTH from
> dynamic addressed sites.
>
> {^_^}
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
> My views are unpopular.
Don't jump to that conclusion. I've said for a long time that spam
will continue to be a problem until spammers start dying for it.
All humor aside, to stop spam you need to change the cost/benefit
analysis enough to make it unattractive.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> If IMAP and POP were enhanced to allow outgoing email to be
> transferred back up the same connection as incoming email it would
> have several advantages.
Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way. The problem
can be easily solved with no c
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> >> 4a) maybe generalize #4 to include various other RFC issues (matching
> >> PTR and A records is an RFC requirement, after all), such as the
> >> things tracked at RFC-Ignorant
> >
> > Less feasible, too many players.
>
> I don't see how it's too many pla
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Allowing IMAP/POP to Send Email
Nonsense. Turn off non-authenticated SMTP except from recognized
ISPs. Force everyone sending email to send it using SMTPAUTH from
dynamic addressed sites.
{^_^}
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 18:02 -0700, jdow wrote:
> From: "Rob Mangiafico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Derek Harding wrote:
> >> rawbody INLINE_IMAGE/src\s*=\s*["']cid:/i
> >> describe INLINE_IMAGE Inline Images
> >> score INLINE_IMAGE 1.5
> >>
> >> I haven't tested this aga
On Aug 1, 2006, at 18:16, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
Not directly stopping spam, but helping to close holes that are
manipulated by spammers, and make it easier to track them:
1) Require Virus Scanning on all SMTP transactions, on the recipient's
side of the t
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Except now you've also delayed your valid mail by 30 minutes or an
> hour which sucks (and is sometimes completely unacceptable).
Repeat after me: "Email is a non-guaranteed, Best Attempt delivery
mechanism. There may be delays."
--
John Hardin KA7OH
Here's an early draft:
The Problem with Spam on the Internet
As Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “In its short life, the
Internet has become an agent of dramatic, even revolutionary change and
maybe one of today's greatest instruments of progress. It is a
marvelous tool to promote and defe
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> Not directly stopping spam, but helping to close holes that are
> manipulated by spammers, and make it easier to track them:
>
> 1) Require Virus Scanning on all SMTP transactions, on the recipient's
> side of the transaction (ie. the "Server") (to help mi
1) use Martin Blapp's OCR plugin/patch for SA. feed data to bayes.
http://antispam.imp.ch/patches/patch-ocrtext
2) to combat the "images with subtle differences", develop a checksum
method that ignores the lower (3 or 4 bits? out of 8 bits) of each
color channel. That way you get what is e
From: "Rob Mangiafico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Derek Harding wrote:
rawbody INLINE_IMAGE/src\s*=\s*["']cid:/i
describe INLINE_IMAGE Inline Images
score INLINE_IMAGE 1.5
I haven't tested this against the SA corpus so YMMV.
Anyone else find this to be a good rule to catc
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Derek Harding wrote:
> rawbody INLINE_IMAGE/src\s*=\s*["']cid:/i
> describe INLINE_IMAGE Inline Images
> score INLINE_IMAGE 1.5
>
> I haven't tested this against the SA corpus so YMMV.
Anyone else find this to be a good rule to catch these image stock spams
without too
On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:06, John Rudd wrote:
5) Require ISP's to channel their customer's email through their own
mail servers (which will have some impact upon SPF tracking as well)
and not allow any non-business customers, nor any dynamic customers
(business or commercial), to directly conn
From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===8<--- Theo's note
A possibly better method is to block SMTP outbound from the ISP. There was a
paper at LISA '05 IIRC about dynamically blocking outbound SMTP based on
connection rates. Something about how infected/spam relay hosts have a large
num
From: "Nix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, negativescore gibbered uncontrollably:
Find a floppy disk. Format it. Move cpanel over to the floppy disk.
Remove the floppy disk from the system. Wrap the floppy in alternating
layers of foil, lead is best, and parafin until it is about 6"
>> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:49 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> >
>> > Except now you've also delayed your valid mail by 30 minutes or an hour
>> > which sucks (and is sometimes completely unacceptable).
>>
>> True though it would be more accurate to say that you've delayed some of
>> your valid m
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:49 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>
> Except now you've also delayed your valid mail by 30 minutes or an hour
> which sucks (and is sometimes completely unacceptable).
True though it would be more accurate to say that you've delayed some of
your valid mail by 30 minutes to
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:33:39PM -0500, Logan Shaw wrote:
> However, don't assume that it kills the benefit of greylisting
> completely: if you can delay processing that questionable
> message for 30 minutes or an hour, that greatly increases the
> chances it will end up on a realtime blacklist
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
They don't really even have to "queue". They just have to retry.
It's a lightweight solution to getting around greylisting.
Crap. That's good.
Yeah, it would be a very simple way of getting around
greylisti
On Aug 1, 2006, at 13:41, Marc Perkel wrote:
Theo Van Dinter wrote:On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:07:38PM -0400,
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
A reliable DUL list would be good. If it were possible to determine
if
an incoming STMP connection were coming from a server or an end user,
that migh
On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:56, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance
Forum of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and
freedom is important, what would you change in the world to stop spam?
I'm looking for things that are actually poss
Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 server.
This is an extract from the headers of an incoming email.
This triggered the "MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header" rule.
Why did this not detect the subject header?
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:conte
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:56:27 -0700, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
opined:
> I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance
> Forum of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and
> freedom is important, what would you change in the world to stop
> spam? I'm looking
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:07:38PM -0400, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
A reliable DUL list would be good. If it were possible to determine if
an incoming STMP connection were coming from a server or an end user,
that might help get rid of the problem of spam
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance Forum
of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and freedom is
important, what would you change in the world to stop spam? I'm looking
for things that are actually possible a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:07:38PM -0400, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
> A reliable DUL list would be good. If it were possible to determine if
> an incoming STMP connection were coming from a server or an end user,
> that might help get rid of the problem of spam from zombie PCs, which
> seems to b
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance Forum
of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and freedom is
important, what would you change in the world to stop spam? I'm looking
for things that are actually possible and practical. Suggest
At 01:16 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
Evan Platt wrote:
Turning Spamming into a capital offense punishable by death would
be a good start. :-D
Now I'm trying to figure out what a capital offense would be that
*isn't* punishable by death...
O yeah huh,
Department of redundancy department.
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 14:16, Ninja Dude wrote:
> Evan Platt wrote:
> > Turning Spamming into a capital offense punishable by death would be a
> > good start. :-D
>
> Now I'm trying to figure out what a capital offense would be that
> *isn't* punishable by death...
Using the wrong case on the l
From: "Jose Celestino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Words by negativescore [Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:40:00PM -0700]:
>
> Hello all,
>
> How do I assign a negative score to BAYES_00? I use cpanel online, and
> when
> I enter a negative score, such as -3.0, it registers as no score at
> all--just bla
Evan Platt wrote:
At 12:56 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance
Forum of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and
freedom is important, what would you change in the world to stop spam?
Turning Spamming into a capital offen
Evan Platt wrote:
Turning Spamming into a capital offense punishable by death would be a
good start. :-D
Now I'm trying to figure out what a capital offense would be that
*isn't* punishable by death...
--
The Ninja Dude. Striking spam from the shadows.
Please, don't send mail to [EMAIL PRO
At 12:56 PM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance
Forum of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and
freedom is important, what would you change in the world to stop spam?
Turning Spamming into a capital offense punishable by deat
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] murmured woefully:
> Find a floppy disk. Format it. Move cpanel over to the floppy disk.
> Remove the floppy disk from the system. Wrap the floppy in alternating
> layers of foil, lead is best, and parafin until it is about 6" thick.
> Save it until the next f
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, negativescore gibbered uncontrollably:
> Find a floppy disk. Format it. Move cpanel over to the floppy disk.
> Remove the floppy disk from the system. Wrap the floppy in alternating
> layers of foil, lead is best, and parafin until it is about 6" thick.
> Save it until the n
A reliable DUL list would be good. If it were possible to determine if
an incoming STMP connection were coming from a server or an end user,
that might help get rid of the problem of spam from zombie PCs, which
seems to be a big part of the spam we get. Perhaps ISPs could be
persuaded to publish
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Steve Martin prattled cheerily:
> I'm seeing lots of errors like the following recently...
>
> spamd[945]: (?:(?<=[\s,]))* matches null string many times in regex; marked
> by <-- HERE in m/\G(?:(?<=[\s,]))* <-- HERE \Z/ at
> /System/ Library/Perl/5.8.6/Text/Wrap.pm line 46.
I'm writing a paper that I'm submitting to an Internet Governance Forum
of the United Nations. Keeping in mind that free speech and freedom is
important, what would you change in the world to stop spam? I'm looking
for things that are actually possible and practical. Suggestions can be
anthing.
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:24:55AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> ...
> Well, until greylisting becomes enough of a problem that the spammers change
> their software to queue and retry, thereby eliminating the benefit completely.
Or even simply send sp
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
If some spammer MTAs are going to only try delivery once, why expend
heavy resources o
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> They don't really even have to "queue". They just have to retry.
...
> It's a lightweight solution to getting around greylisting.
Crap. That's good.
I suppose one way around it might be to hardfail if the far end is
retrying too quickly or too many times
At 10:23 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
Maybe, but with a sense of humour. And he (his MUA more likely) can
quote properly.
AOL.
Many a list I'm on have an AOLDiot. One of them didn't quote at all.
So in a thread with hundreds of replies, he'd chime in with "Great
idea! I agree!" and no one had an
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:24:55AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
How many spams would really comeback. max 20%
There is a much lighter-weight and more global way to achieve that:
standard greylisting.
Well, until greylisting becomes enough o
Words by negativescore [Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:40:00PM -0700]:
>
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > How do I assign a negative score to BAYES_00? I use cpanel online, and
> > when
> > I enter a negative score, such as -3.0, it registers as no score at
> > all--just blank space in the score cell.
>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:24:55AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > > How many spams would really comeback. max 20%
> > There is a much lighter-weight and more global way to achieve that:
> > standard greylisting.
>
> Well, until greylisting becomes
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Jim Maul wrote:
> > There is a much lighter-weight and more global way to achieve that:
> > standard greylisting.
>
> Im curious how many organizations that arent ISPs are using some sort of
> greylisting. Do your "users" complain when the email they sent to a
> fellow emp
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Maul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
T
Ken A wrote:
Jim Maul wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again, is that you
Jim Maul wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again, is that you've already us
\| great!
|
| Is there any other way to match ascii in a base64 encoded part than by
| using a full rule with SpamAssassin?
|
| Thanks,
|
| Ken A
| Pacific.Net
|
Ditto
Brian
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 04:11:43PM -0700, Ken A wrote:
These image spams are not easy to stop. I'm finally getting them with a
'full' rule matching a string that is common in the base64 encoded image
part. I'm sure the image will change friday and break my rule for next
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:24:55AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > How many spams would really comeback. max 20%
> There is a much lighter-weight and more global way to achieve that:
> standard greylisting.
Well, until greylisting becomes enough of a problem that the spammers change
their softw
At 09:45 AM 8/1/2006, you wrote:
This message was stopped , and I'm not really sure what triggered the Diploma
Mill rule
The sender is legitimate (UNFPA.org) and I read the message it seems* ok
sorry to read about your tooth. i lost two upper fronts
due to bicycle accident some 27 years
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
(Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again, is that you've already used the bandwidth
an
This message was stopped , and I'm not really sure what triggered the Diploma
Mill rule
The sender is legitimate (UNFPA.org) and I read the message it seems* ok
sorry to read about your tooth. i lost two upper fronts
due to bicycle accident some 27 years ago. I fell, hit a rock right
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Ramprasad wrote:
> How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an
> inline image and then somehow verify if it really comes back.
> (Obviously not my original idea :-) )
The problem there, again, is that you've already used the bandwidth
and system resources n
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:54:43 +0530, sokka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
> Dear Group Member,
>
> Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
>
> regards
Please see:
http://tqmcube.com/spamdef.php and;
http://tqmcube.com/contrib.php (which was contributed by Paul Vixie)
--
Our DNSRB
> Dear Group Member,
> Can anyone explain me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
Most everyone agrees that spam is unsolicited e-mail sent from entities
with whom you do not have a previously established business or personal
relationship ...OR... where you've opted to not receive such
On Monday 31 July 2006 18:04, Ben Wylie took the opportunity to say:
> Am running SpamAssassin 3.1.2 on Windows 2003 server.
>
> This is an extract from the headers of an incoming email.
> This triggered the "MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header" rule.
> Why did this not detect the subject heade
Op 1-aug-06, om 06:26 heeft Theo Van Dinter het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:20:44AM +0600, Tshering NORBU wrote:
I am posting my mail again. Does anyone in the list know
about the following error?
cgpav: Error spam checking file:
/var/CommuniGate/Queue/21294134.msg
Your su
Use google, or wikipedia on spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_%28electronic%29
Ham is everything that is NOT spam.
hope that clears things... :)
Gabor Sipos
>
Dear Group Member,
Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
regards
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:54:43PM +0530, sokka wrote:
> Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
The short version is:
spam: unsolicited bulk email (aka: bad mail)
ham: anything that's not spam (aka: good mail)
It really comes down to consent as opposed to what you want versu
SPAM is canned HAM... HAM is the backside of any animal, typically the meat
made from that part, though the shoulder part is also referred to as HAM.
Eating to much HAM will make you fat and too lazy to search archives, wikipedia
or google...
-Sietse
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 07:24, sokka wrote:
> Dear Group Member,
>
> Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
Spam is spam. Ham ain't. What's the problem?
--
Gary G. Taylor * Pomona, CA * 34.07°N 117.75°W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.donavan.org
Dear Group Member,
Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
Yes. I'm sure quite a few people can.
Loren
Dear Group Member,
Can anyone explian me the clear definition of SPAM and HAM
regards
How about sending "450 Please Try later" to ever mail with an inline
image and then somehow verify if it really comes back. (Obviously not my
original idea :-) )
How many spams would really comeback. max 20% .. those which are routed
thru zombies
Thanks
Ram
jdow wrote:
>
> One that made it through here had no URLs in the body, a LOT of HTML
> formatting, and hit HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06, a very low scoring rule.
> The HTML formatting is excessive use of this long string for
> individually formatting small chunks of text which are then covered
> by the e
92 matches
Mail list logo
