The rule should be formatted to accomidate such situations (especially reply in HTML). As mail clients are updated they are starting to prefer such a route as HTML mail is supported by over 90% of the email clients out there. The reality is as more clients become HTML mail clients, it will become more common to send just HTML mail since it's quicker, and smaller in size. One should also note, that all HTML capable email clients have an option to display html mail as plain text (strips images and formatting out). For those who just don't like the appearance. This stripping capability has been implemented in some clients who want to stay plain text.
In my testing over the past few months, this has been involved in all but 1 good email in spamjail thus far. And that one was just plain text (one of those "visit my webcam" emails).
Spammers tend to use both HTML/TEXT since it still serves it's purpose as spam regardless of the client used. The exception being the ones that use really bad spam software (those that leave lots of stupid mistakes in the client).
This is one of those rules that tends to cause too many good emails gathering to many points. SpamAssassin should be orienting it's rules to detect spam, not messages that use different standards. This outdated rule is like considering all mail written in french to be spam.
SpamAssassin 3.0 needs to have some rules added to zero in on the typical spamer techniques (excessive commenting in code, odd spacing in HTML, IP address used in images, says "see attached", contains)... I've been really analyzing spam by hand over the past few weeks to create a few bugs with some improved rule ideas. Expect to see quite a few over the next week as I near the end of phase 1 of my SpamAnalysis.
Relying on mail format is silly, and will exponentially continue email to be sent to spamjail rather than just spam.
Should note AOL and MSN has been making big business of HTML mail for use with digital imaging etc. As that type of stuff becomes more affordable and popular, HTML mail will continue to grow more. That means more and more email will be mistreated by SA.
SA needs to learn to detect Spam. With rules that will ensure email service is not disrupted otherwise. That is the reason why Spam Detection software isn't as popular as it should be. People don't want to miss any email.
Michael Moncur wrote:
Ed Weinberg wrote:I am surprised that email that just has html with no text does not score higher. From '85 to 2002 I used an email client (Forte Agent) which did not render HTML. I make the generalization that any email, with the exception of newsletters, that does not include plain text is spam. I received 2 legitimate emails without plain text in those 7 years.I rarely receive legitimate HTML-only email either, so I raise the score of CTYPE_JUST_HTML on my installation. Unfortunately, other users do receive nonspam like this, and the released scores are trying to work best for all users.-- Michael Moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "Every crowd has a silver lining." --Phineas Taylor Barnum ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
