On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0500, 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 have several people who insist upon sending mail in only HTML. In fact, my father called me just this past weekend to bitch at me about how annoying it is that, when I send him email, it's always in plain text. Yes, his email program, some Earthlink thing, sends HTML *only*, not multipart/alternative. So do several others; I have other people who do this as well, mostly because they don't know how to do otherwise, and it is nearly *impossible* to explain to non-technical people why it's bad to be able to use fonts and colors and formatting in an email, and they aren't going to pay attention to whether their mail program is sending the result as multipart/alternative or just text/html. It's something we have to live with. I did create some rules for "mail contains HTML" and I do score it up, and I do score "only HTML" even higher, but it's *far* from a reliable spam sign these days. -Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Take your first step towards giving your online business a competitive advantage. Test-drive a Thawte SSL certificate - our easy online guide will show you how. Click here to get started: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0027en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
