Do you think anyone has notified blogspot.com that their site is being abused by spammers?
On Feb 19, 2008 7:27 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:08 +1300, Michael Hutchinson wrote: > > From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 14:26 +1300, Michael Hutchinson wrote: > > > > You'll be lucky to catch them on anything other than phrase matching, as > > > > they're very simple in design, those spam messages. Much like the > > > > "downlooadable sooftware" one's we used to get. To a program, there's > > > > not much that looks like Spam about these messages. > > > > > > This is not true. :) I posted a meta rule that doesn't even look at the > > > body earlier. > [...] > > Ah yes, I saw that one earlier on. I hadn't employed it as my phrases > > are working well, but I do intend to tweak a meta based on the one you > > posted, once I've had time to fully test the CLIENT_TO_MX part :) > > That much should be easy. ;) The internal meta header holds all relays, > in this case the untrusted ones. Each relay's data inside square > brackets. The simple rule just enforces there be exactly one opening > square bracket, and thus exactly one external relay. (Note that you > definitely need to have your trusted network set up correctly.) > > And the disclaimer, in the wise words of Donald E. Knuth: Beware of > bugs in the above program. I proved it correct, I did not try it. > > > guenther > > > -- > char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; > main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1: > (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}} > >
