On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, I wrote: > I found some sample filter code on a website, and I'm trying to adapt > it to what I want to do, which is reject E-Mail using these character > sets. I'd appreciate a sanity-check of both the code and the idea.
Jim McCullars: > If you don't have foriegn nationals at your organization that may need >to send/receive email in those character sets, then I don't see a problem. Nope, don't have that issue. Matthew van Eerde: > Implementation: looks sane OK, good. >Idea: looks insane >I think you're over-reacting. This is verging on an RFC violation: OK. Ordinarily I'd agree with you. However, an analysis of 10 YEARS of collected E-Mail has shown that 6 of those character sets are *only* associated with SPAM. Only the "windoze-125x" sets show up in any of my HAM, and then its very little - and I can drop those two sets out of my auto-reject list. And MD already technically violates RFCs. I think that worrying about this idea violating the spirit of an RFC "should" clause is like worrying that the finish on my new anti-burgler deadbolt lock violates the HOA-approved color scheme. >>James Ebright >Jim McCullars >> Would this not be better served by leaving this to Spamassassin? If it is not > > If he knows for a fact that he wants to reject those emails outright, >then rejecting them in filter() and avoiding a call to SA is the more >prudent choice. That is my objective - to ditch the garbage as early as possible. If I can avoid invoking SA and reliably kill SPAM, that's fine. Thanks to everyone for their feedback. Dirk _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
