At 16:12 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
Out of curiosity, did you spot where the error in the formatting is?
I looked at the message and failed to spot it...
My initial reply was incorrect as it's not a MIME related problem. I
viewed the message again after your question.
There's an extra
Hmmm, maybe you schould decrease the score?
Am 2008-04-03 12:47:12, schrieb Ed Kasky:
> I can't seem to catch these emails with blank bodies. I upped the
> BLANK_LINES_80_90 score to 3 but the email below didn't get a hit off the
> rule.
>
> Is there another rule that I don't know about that i
Ed Kasky wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
SM wrote:
At 04:46 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
However, in this case it looks purely accidental. That appears to
be a legitimate HTML document, or at least doesn't appear to be
intentionally malformed.
In this case, the message wa
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
SM wrote:
At 04:46 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
However, in this case it looks purely accidental. That appears to be a
legitimate HTML document, or at least doesn't appear to be intentionally
malformed.
In this case, the message wasn't formatted co
SM wrote:
At 04:46 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
However, in this case it looks purely accidental. That appears to be
a legitimate HTML document, or at least doesn't appear to be
intentionally malformed.
In this case, the message wasn't formatted correctly as it's going to
be rendered as a
At 04:46 04-04-2008, Matt Kettler wrote:
However, in this case it looks purely accidental. That appears to be
a legitimate HTML document, or at least doesn't appear to be
intentionally malformed.
In this case, the message wasn't formatted correctly as it's going to
be rendered as a blank mess
Ed Kasky wrote:
Odds are the message isn't blank.. Have you got a copy of the raw
message before Eudora gets a hold of it?
I should have looked at the raw message. Even in pine, it shows blank
until you display the full headers:
http://www.wrenkasky.com/spam/resipiscence.txt
Quite a dif
At 05:21 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, Matt Kettler wrote -=>
Ed Kasky wrote:
At 01:29 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, John Hardin wrote -=>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS autolearn=no version
Ed Kasky wrote:
At 01:29 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, John Hardin wrote -=>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS autolearn=no version=3.2.4
How did it hit SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS with a blank
At 01:29 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, John Hardin wrote -=>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS autolearn=no version=3.2.4
How did it hit SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS with a blank body?
I wish I
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS autolearn=no version=3.2.4
How did it hit SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS with a blank body?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~
Ed Kasky wrote:
> I can't seem to catch these emails with blank bodies. I upped the
> BLANK_LINES_80_90 score to 3 but the email below didn't get a hit off
> the rule.
>
> Is there another rule that I don't know about that is designed for
> blank message bodies?
>
> Thanks in advance on this one.
I can't seem to catch these emails with blank bodies. I upped the
BLANK_LINES_80_90 score to 3 but the email below didn't get a hit off the rule.
Is there another rule that I don't know about that is designed for
blank message bodies?
Thanks in advance on this one. These things have been pl
s the subject, such as I believe
is sent by Windows 'Mail to Recipient' function. The problem is that these
messages seem to be triggering digest checks:
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF recordcheck
I can only assume that digest checks are matching the hashes of other
r.sf.net/)
1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
0.8 DIGEST_MULTIPLEMessage hits more than one network digest check
I can only assume that digest checks are matching the hashes of other blank
messages, and that Razor et al ignore
15 matches
Mail list logo
