What I was sugesting was to go with the previous comment about extracting comments which are designed to obfuscate things by doing th<!--blah-->is in a simplified, fast-executing regex, and an actual rule (rawbody type) worth in the 4-5 ballpark, which recognizes <! -- weird -- > comments in their own right, which could be a more complex regex (which will match less often).
I generally agree about doing things right the first time so as not to have to revisit the same problem down the road. In this instance though, I don't think it's something that would need to be revisited if we add the UNUSUAL_COMMENT rule to catch any nefarious future spammer activites in this area. C Theo Van Dinter wrote: TVD> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:48:08PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote: TVD> > I would say having 2 rules for regular comments and "obfuscated" comments would TVD> > make sense. Obfuscated comments are very likely to only *ever* appear in spam. TVD> > regular comments might occasionally appear in legitimate mail. TVD> TVD> This is, however, off topic from the original issue. This wasn't for TVD> a rule to detect comments in a message, this was for a regexp to remove TVD> comments from a message before doing the plethora of body scans. TVD> TVD> _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
