> Though those are easy to whitelist. Is the philosophy here to assume > that the user isn't whitelisting? (<- That's not a hostile question, > I just don't know.)
It's generally the philosophy, I think. You have to assume that 90% of the people who use any software aren't going to customize it at all. > With whitelisting, I would give it a very high score. If it's not on > my whitelist and has an embedded image, it's almost certain to be > spam. I might agree except that SpamAssassin does such a good job already. I doubt an IMG rule would change anything. I would like an "IMG and not much else" rule, though, and am trying to figure out how to do that. > LuKreme said: > > But is it more useful than the HTML check? > > Yes. I get a *lot* of legitimate email in HTML from individuals. > With a lot of email clients, the second you make *any* font change -- > italics, color, bolding -- it becomes an HTML message. I believe the "HTML check" in question is a check for Content-type: text/html ONLY. Outlook, in particular, always includes a text version in a multiple-part message. This rule is very good - it almost never triggers on legitimate HTML mail. -- michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't." -- Douglas Adams _______________________________________________________________ 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
