Never mind, then. On Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 2:47:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
> Hi Duane, > I don't see the point. SpamAssasin has really nothing to do with the filters > from IMail . > ============================================ > Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2005 um 15:00 schrieben Sie: >> On Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 10:17:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated: >>> Hi, >>> I'm trying to find a rule to filter Mail containing a image only. >>> The rule to filter an empty body would be: B!~(\w|\S). >>> This would not work if an image is in the body. the image tag "<img >>> src=3Dcid:355c628c0d1c32416ab32a0657415cc7>" is a text. >>> I'm not sure, If the parser excludes Image from text. So far i >>> Remember IMail parses everything in the body, e.g. images, pdf's, doc's or >>> whatever we have. >>> I think, the bulid in regex are not good enough to find a rule "If >>> a mail contains a image AND not other text". >>> Any idea? >>> Thanks >> Don't know if this helps or not. I haven't investigated too much yet. >> I've seen a few but not that many to cause alarm yet. This was just >> posted this morning on the users list for SpamAssassin: >> ----- >> <QUESTION> >> I have setup SA 3.1 under FC4, which is working quite well. However, >> one type of message that still gets through is a series of mails that are >> made up of no text other than a varying subject, then a picture, which is >> black text on white, which looks exactly like an ordinary email. Obviously >> SA can't read the message since it is an image, but is there a way to make a >> rule that blocks a mail where there is an image only, no text? >> </QUESTION> >> <RESPONSE> >> Yes, this is a problem, but a simple rule like you describe is overly >> broad; What happens when my wife sends our children snapshots from with her >> cell phone (which causes exactly this case - though the pictures are in >> color). >> Maybe other service providers add some text, and I know she *could* attach a >> message, but seldom does (she just gives it a title like "Nice statue", >> "Pretty bird" or similar short, almost meaningless "Subject:" lines). >> Also, you obviously haven't seen the multi-color text on colored >> background spams with thin (one pixel) randomly angled lines going through >> the text to confuse the commercial services who do already attempt character >> recognition in images. Maybe some enterprising individual will try to >> write a plug-in for SA to do this (still, it would be computationally >> expensive for sites getting many images). >> Once again, digests, net tests (DSN, RCVD, etc.) and header rules >> are your best defense for now (also, AFAICT, ".png" files appear mostly >> in spam, JPEG and TIFF files are sent by most camera phones, so maybe a rule >> on image type would help some, but spammers would quickly adapt, and nearly >> all image formats have legitimate uses - let's not argue about ".gif"s here). >> </RESPONSE> -- "This message is made of 100% recycled electrons." To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
