On 04/11/2010 8:11 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Moving back on-list, since it doesn't appear to be personally directed
at me.
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:22 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 04/11/2010 7:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
No, that requires the Subject to consist of exactly one
Moving back on-list, since it doesn't appear to be personally directed
at me.
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 19:22 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 7:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > No, that requires the Subject to consist of exactly one whitespace.
> >
> > Read it out load. The ^ begi
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 18:08 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 5:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > header __LW_EMPTY_SUBJECT Subject =~ /[[:space:]]$/
> > That rule does *not* do what you intend. It matches, if the last char of
> > the Subject happens to be a whitespace.
> >
> >
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 04/11/2010 6:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Are the Subject lines blank or missing from the body? And that goes
for the "To" also.
In the spam I am seeing, there are both present and empty.
Example
To:
Subject:
I ran a email through spamc and it hits missing and e
On 04/11/2010 6:35 PM, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Are the Subject lines blank or missing from the body? And that goes
for the "To" also.
In the spam I am seeing, there are both present and empty.
Example
To:
Subject:
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed a bunch of spams coming in recently that have no To: and
Subject: and have cobbled together the following rule to combat them.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
# Message has empty To: and Subject: headers
# Likely spam
header __LW_EMPTY_SUBJECT Sub
On 04/11/2010 5:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 15:55 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
I've noticed a bunch of spams coming in recently that have no To: and
Subject: and have cobbled together the following rule to combat them.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Just as a
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 15:55 -0230, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
> I've noticed a bunch of spams coming in recently that have no To: and
> Subject: and have cobbled together the following rule to combat them.
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
Just as a side note, there is a difference between a mi
Hi,
I've noticed a bunch of spams coming in recently that have no To: and
Subject: and have cobbled together the following rule to combat them.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
# Message has empty To: and Subject: headers
# Likely spam
header __LW_EMPTY_SUBJECT Subject =~ /[[:space:]]$/
met
