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.
Iain Smith wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently getting FPs from users sending themselves mail from personal
accounts with blank message bodies. Many times these messages are presumably
reminders, and as such have valid subject lines. Often these messages
contain attachments with the same filename as the su
13 matches
Mail list logo