1 hit of comments with the 10 parameter since
10/1/05... If it matters it was spam.
- Original Message -
From:
Goran Jovanovic
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:24
AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments
Test
Back
Back in the beginning of last year there
was some talk about the COMMENTS test and its effectiveness. I would like to
know if others are using this test anymore and if so how well is it performing
for you. For me it is hitting a very small percentage of my e-mail 0.16% and I
am having FPs
I am just looking through some of the built in declude tests that I have
been running unsuccessfully and the COMMENTS test is one of them. Have
any of you had great success with this test? How have you used this test
successfully? I am currently using it to look for 6,8 10 comments but
am
I am just looking through some of the built in declude tests
that I have been running unsuccessfully and the COMMENTS test is one of them.
Have any of you had great success with this test? How have you used this
test successfully? I am currently using it to look for 6,8 10
comments but am
Maybe im not quite familiar with the workings of the COMMENTS test, but
shouldn't the included text trigger that test?
FAQ. :)
O/incinerateur
This is not an HTML comment -- you can search the archives for more details.
If not, what suggestions do you have? I see so much spam slip by that has
-
-Nick Hayer
From: Omar K. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:21:17 +0200
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe im not quite
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Omar,
I get tons of this stuff too - but it is easy to filter on for example in
your bodyfilter
:RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:55:50 -0500
Organization: ClickandPledge.com
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi;
Actually I am now curious...
Based on Scott Declude will take away the / before checking the
email
Does Medicat/ion work as a filter?
Yes, but it isn't necessary, as:
If Declude takes off the ... then we should just use Medication since
really Medicat/... can not be detected.
you can just use Medication.
That's why I say that it really isn't an issue -- while it isn't possible
to detect
Title: Comments test
Scott:
Just an observation.. It seems like the Comments test is not being triggered as often as I see it used..
I thought you stated a while back that the comments test now picks up any attempt to break words.. E.g.
=
HTMLHEAD
BODY
Just an observation.. It seems like the Comments test is not being
triggered as often as I see it used..
FAQ. :)
I thought you stated a while back that the comments test now picks up any
attempt to break words.. E.g.
No -- it just isn't possible.
The COMMENTS test detects anti-filter
R. Scott Perry wrote:
The problem is that it is nearly impossible to determine which are
valid HTML tags and which are not -- that would require a database of
known good HTML tags, which would need to be constantly updated.
This was the first filter that I tried writing actually :) I got a
Here's another email with a problem, the comments test has been fired
but there is no html portion, there are ! in the winmail.dat attached
file that seems to be triggering it.
Is it possible to make this test just look inside Content-Type:
text/html sections or even html open and close tags?
Here's another email with a problem, the comments test has been fired
but there is no html portion, there are ! in the winmail.dat attached
file that seems to be triggering it.
Is it possible to make this test just look inside Content-Type:
text/html sections or even html open and close tags?
Not
Ok, I'll add a minimum number in to help in this case.
Cheers
Jools
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:51:16 -0400, you wrote:
Here's another email with a problem, the comments test has been fired
but there is no html portion, there are ! in the winmail.dat attached
file that seems to be triggering it.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] COMMENTS test needs adjusting?
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email
Hi,
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has ! in it, I think the test
needs to be adjusted to not scan attachment bodies.
Jools
Received: from EMMAWILLIAMS [195.8.189.42] by mainstreamuk.com with
ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.00) id
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has ! in it, I think the test
needs to be adjusted to not scan attachment bodies.
Very interesting -- that's the first time I've ever seen a .PDF file that
was encoded in a way that was
I've seen a newsletter with 27 comments (motely fool), but there seems to be a sweet
spot between 10 and 20. Just make sure you use it as a weighted test.
I'm expecting the rationale configuration that works with html counting to also work
with the new subject count tests, for similar
I've seen a newsletter with 27 comments (motely fool), but there seems to
be a sweet spot between 10 and 20. Just make sure you use it as a
weighted test.
FWIW, there was a problem with v1.67 where it could catch standard comments
(such as the ones found in the motley fool newsletter), but
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments Test
snipSpecifically, 1.67 would count a comment like
BR!-- some comment --H1..., where the comment was embedded between
HTML commands. 1.68 won't count those, so even 1 of the comments that the
test catches in 1.68 should indicate spam
Scott, does the COMMENTS test also catch bogus HTML tags?
No. It is only designed to catch HTML comments that are designed
specifically to bypass filters, such as I am a spa!-- haha! --mmer
(which would appear in the mail client as I am a spammer).
I've seen rather a lot of spam HTML messages
22 matches
Mail list logo
