> and discovered the SPAM itself was comprised "mostly" of an image. The > actual text of the message wasn't enough to trip SA into tagging it as > SPAM. Has anyone seen similar and, if so, have you come up with a "best > solution" that you could share?
This is the reason I came up with the HTML percentage tests (HTML_50_70, etc) but it seems like lately image-only spams aren't matching any of these. I'm not sure if they have a text-plain part I'm not seeing, or what. I'm looking into it. An eval test that specifically looks for an IMG tag and not much else might be good too. -- Michael Moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "No human thing is of serious importance." --Plato ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
