The minor difference would be why. The checksum generated by the first one is different than the checksum of the second.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Peter Haight wrote: > I reported the first one and then razor-check correctly came back with it > identified as spam. The second one is almost exactly the same, but with a > little bit of random characters at the bottom which are obviously for > fooling things like Razor. I thought Razor 2 was supposed to handle this > kind of thing. I'm using Razor 2.14. > > Here's a diff of the two messages: > > @@ -94,5 +94,5 @@ > </table> > </center> > </div> > -<font color=white>gbxmcgqevl</font></body> > +<font color=white>oivhg</font></body> > </html> > > I've also attached both messages. > > -- Mike Burger http://www.bubbanfriends.org Visit the Dog Pound II BBS telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org:2000 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
