However, how frequently would a transaction of this type be the *very
first* contact between the two systems? If it were not the very first
contact then by definition there would be no delay imposed.
Does that make a difference?
In some cases the very first email two bankers exchange are
In an attempt to keep the original thread going, here's some anecdotal
evidence of the problem and relevance of this test.
In the last 60 hours, 15 separate pieces of spam have gotten through to
my own account, out of those, 6 contained no displayable text, just
comments (and other crap in
Ok, I've given this one some more thought and review and it looks like
the way that Scott suggested it might have a better long-term effect.
It's my belief that spam, especially the worst of the worst, will
become more and more graphic based because of heuristics, however if
they simply just
...since a delay is mostly harmless...
Pete, you're an awesome programmer, and I stand in awe of Sniffer's
sophistication and penetration.
However, I think your idea is strikingly out-of-touch with the way
SMTP is used in 2003. We can howl to the heavens about its
At 04:00 PM 9/6/2003 -0400, you wrote:
...since a delay is mostly harmless...
Pete, you're an awesome programmer, and I stand in awe of Sniffer's
sophistication and penetration.
Thanks.
However, I think your idea is strikingly out-of-touch with the way
SMTP is used in 2003. We can
Keep in mind that known message sources would not be delayed - only
new, unknown sources. This amounts in principle to an automatic
management of QOS - giving some preference to traffic that is
already established.
I understand the idea, but I still disagree strongly
FWIW, I agree. Some of my clients are bankers that exchange their documents
over encrypted email and expect instant delivery. Of course, with user and
domain specific configurations, these could easily be exempted from delayed
processing.
Not on systems we manage. If 2 hours were the average
At 09:35 PM 9/6/2003 -0600, you wrote:
FWIW, I agree. Some of my clients are bankers that exchange their documents
over encrypted email and expect instant delivery. Of course, with user and
domain specific configurations, these could easily be exempted from delayed
processing.
Indeed.
However,
At 10:53 PM 9/6/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Keep in mind that known message sources would not be delayed - only
new, unknown sources. This amounts in principle to an automatic
management of QOS - giving some preference to traffic that is
already established.
I understand the idea,
This seems to be the wave of the future in spamming. There's a lot of
spam coming in with no text, just other HTML, mainly to display an image
and get by heuristics. Most of this stuff gets caught by the various
lists, but I get a couple a day to addresses pointed at my own account
that
This seems to be the wave of the future in spamming. There's a lot of
spam coming in with no text, just other HTML, mainly to display an image
and get by heuristics. Most of this stuff gets caught by the various
lists, but I get a couple a day to addresses pointed at my own account
that
All of the text is in the image, and the image is linked. If that IMG
tag came through to you, follow it and you will see what I am talking
about. A variation on this is to primarily use the image and link for
the content, and include some bogus text, typically random characters
below the
] Feature request: no displayable text in body
This seems to be the wave of the future in spamming. There's a lot of
spam coming in with no text, just other HTML, mainly to display an image
and get by heuristics. Most of this stuff gets caught by the various
lists, but I get a couple a day
Maybe you're not seeing everything that I sent to the list, in which case,
let me reprint the body of the message and modify the links so I don't set
off the filters:
htmlbody
center!--kpz4j815n29--a
href=http://www-dot-wholesale22-dot-com/host/default.asp?ID=omni;img
Ah, I see now. This can get tricky though -- looking for no visible
text at all (just HTML tags) would be easy for spammers to bypass.
Checking for the amount of visible text compared to the amount of HTML
code seems like a good idea at first, except thanks to Microsoft Word
E-mail, that
At 08:04 PM 9/5/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Maybe you're not seeing everything that I sent to the list, in which
case, let me reprint the body of the message and modify the links so I
don't set off the filters:
htmlbody
center!--kpz4j815n29--a
16 matches
Mail list logo
