On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 09:27 -0400, Randy wrote:
> Also they changed the name
> and image ( slightly ) . Now the image is "Gibas.png" or at least, they
> are using this too.
>
They're using a variety of names these days, but all following the fprm
you quote: PersonalName.png. I've decoupled my ima
Ned Slider wrote:
Ned Slider wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it
hits a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an
inline png:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-
Ned Slider wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it
hits a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an
inline png:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Dispo
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>McDonald, Dan wrote:
>> From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>>
>>> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
>>> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>>
>> meta AE_PNG_ATT
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 02:08 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>
> Content-Type: image/png
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline
McDonald, Dan wrote:
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
Any idea how to tackle these? I have the DSC png rule in place but
obvious
Ned Slider wrote:
> I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
> a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>
> Content-Type: image/png
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> here's the full message:
>
>
On 5-May-2009, at 19:08, Ned Slider wrote:
Content-Type: image/png
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
Interesting. I'd think a no-name image would be a pretty strong spam
indicator.
Didn't it hit the no text rules?
I get:
Content analysis details: (4.3 points
From: Ned Slider [mailto:n...@unixmail.co.uk]
>I had one sneak through today which didn't hit any rules at all (it hits
>a few DNSBLs now but not when I received it). It contained an inline png:
>Any idea how to tackle these? I have the DSC png rule in place but
>obviously that doesn't appl
Randy wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does
not contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a
high percentage of ima
On Tue, 5 May 2009, "Adam C?cile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
400x240 DSC\d+.png image spam again.
Please check the list archives for the thread with the subject "Almost no
score", t
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
RW a écrit :
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there
Charles Gregory wrote:
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does
not contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a
high percentage of image versus text
Just a quick question:
I'm noticing that these 'png' spams don't have a text section, or any
message body text, and yet my SA does not trigger on any 'message does not
contain text' rules? I've seen rules trigger when messages are a high
percentage of image versus text, but why no hits when 1
RW a écrit :
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it
On Tue, 5 May 2009 14:44:29 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> > Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> > Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
> >
> > Is there any rules that can block it ? It se
Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
Hello,
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
the same.
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
You may be flooded n
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 14:16 +0200, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
>
> Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
> the same.
>
Most stop these mes
On 05.05.09 14:16, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
> Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
> Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
>
> Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
> the same.
OCR module like FuzzyOCR should cat
Hello,
Both my personnal and pro. emails get this stupid spam.
Here is the image: http://dedibox.le-vert.net/divers/DSC.png
Is there any rules that can block it ? It seems the picture is always
the same.
Thanks in advance,
Regards, Adam.
21 matches
Mail list logo
