On 09/19/2017 08:20 AM, RW wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:11:03 -0500
David Jones wrote:
On 09/19/2017 07:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Is it purposeful extra space though that might indicate spaminess?
Spample? Regards,
KAM
On September 19, 2017 8:13:09 AM EDT, RW
<rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:27:13 +0100
Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I've had a number of emails with no subject not triggering
the MISSING_SUBJECT rule - only to discover that the spammers have
added a white space after 'Subject:' - which appears to fool the
code into
thinking that there is an actual subject. Would it be
possible to 'smarten up' the code a bit to recognise this?
The space doesn't make a difference.
The test is for a missing subject not an empty subject. Some
people send emails without setting a subject but the client will
normally still add the header.
I have had these in place for years. Maybe Kevin can consolidate and
integrate this into his KAM.cf so I could remove them or we could
eventually get them into the default SA ruleset after some testing.
header ENA_SUBJ_IS_SPACE Subject =~ /^ $/
The OP said there was a space after 'Subject:', so that rule wouldn't
detect it.
Mail headers always have a space after the colon which should not be
considered part of the header's value. That ENA rule above would be two
spaces after the header's colon. All of those rules I sent last post
detect something a little different and combined they cover most of the
tricks I have seen to get around the MISSING_SUBJECT rule.
--
David Jones
