On Wed, June 19, 2013 3:47 pm, Axb wrote:
> SA's URIBL plugin doesn't and shouldn't look in the alt attribute.
Why not, exactly? I wouldn't look at it for _all_ img tags, only for ones
that are clearly MailScanner-munged. That is, one would look for the
patterns that MailScanner uses for munging
On 06/19/2013 11:30 PM, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
Yes, MailScanner gets to it before SA does, unless SA is called from
within MailScanner (which it isn't, on my setup, but that is a possible
setup). However, the complete original URL is still contained within the
munged one. It's in the alt attri
On Wed, June 19, 2013 3:14 pm, Axb wrote:
> iirc, MailScanner munges the URL befor SA sees it so unless your plugin
> idea involves a crystal ball, it's not possible.
Yes, MailScanner gets to it before SA does, unless SA is called from
within MailScanner (which it isn't, on my setup, but that is a
On 06/19/2013 10:54 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
Perhaps SA should include a module/plugin to "unmunge" MailScanner
munging? Has anyone written one, or if not, would anyone like to? ;-)
(Since MailScanner is open-source perl, I imagine it should be relatively
straightforward to find the munging code, w
On Wed, June 19, 2013 2:33 pm, Axb wrote:
> imo, it makes little sense to write rules to catch these hashbusters. As
If the rule is sufficiently broad, it will catch them. If the rule is so
strict that it catches only one trailing slash or something, then yes, it
makes little sense... but I think
Another, nearly identical example I saw today , but which used trailing
slashes (/ or //) instead of parentheses.
http://pastebin.com/6XRwcjm3
Enjoy. =)
--- Amir
On Wed, June 19, 2013 2:11 pm, ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> See the follo
On 06/19/2013 10:11 PM, ceph...@3phase.com wrote:
Hi John,
See the following example:
http://pastebin.com/DAYJ7NnJ
Lots of style gibberish for sure, but it failed to hit your rule
(sa-update ran at 4am today so it should have picked up anything
published). I'm guessing it's the parentheses.
Hi John,
See the following example:
http://pastebin.com/DAYJ7NnJ
Lots of style gibberish for sure, but it failed to hit your rule
(sa-update ran at 4am today so it should have picked up anything
published). I'm guessing it's the parentheses.
Whack the mole! =)
Is there anybody using SA's bayes with the Redis backend?
If yes, please raise your hands.
(I know of three, you can keep your hand down :)
An imminent SA RC release will require a DB format change.
Questions & comments welcome.
