I realized that I hadn't sent this reply back to the group... On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 15:30, Diffenderfer, Randy wrote: > In testing, I have forwarded various samples of the heap o' spam that I have > in my AOL mailbox. The "enlarge your..." sample resonates strongly with the > rules -- clearly marked as spam. However, one porno spam, rife with porno > words, doesn't even fire a single rule!? I am at a loss to understand that. > I can supply the spam in question to any who would want to see it, or to > verify that it is indeed immune to SA/'s analysis. I certainly can't > imagine (well, maybe can't hope...) that the spammers have crafted SA immune > spams!
I'm wondering if a spammer included a bogus X-Spam-Status: header in the spam. Most how-to examples have people checking to scan emails only if that header does not exist. Couldn't a spammer include this and escape spamassassin unscathed? Or could the X-Spam-Status: header be rewritten (if it already exists) with the content of the latest spamassassin scan? I will admit that I haven't looked through any archives or anything to see if this has been discussed before. Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------- 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
