John, for what it's worth, I find that CBL and selective SORBS tests are
much more reliable since I renamed them to include DYNA in their test
name, resulting in my giving them higher weights.
Much of what gets get caught that way are the zombies on broadband networks.
Matt's DYNAMIC test
, January 01, 2004 3:08 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Test Suggestion
John, for what it's worth, I find that CBL and selective SORBS tests are
much more reliable since I renamed them to include DYNA in their test
name, resulting in my giving them higher weights.
Much
This would be a test similar to SPAMDOMAINS but instead would be SPAMREVDNS.
Instead of seeing if the domain matches the REVDNS, it would check if the
REVDNS matches the domain.
It would work like this:
.aol.com@aol.com
If the REVDNS ended with .aol.com but the from address did not end
This would be a test similar to SPAMDOMAINS but instead would be
SPAMREVDNS.
Instead of seeing if the domain matches the REVDNS, it would check if the
REVDNS matches the domain.
It would work like this:
.aol.com@aol.com
If the REVDNS ended with .aol.com but the from address
Scott, I didn't see any response from you about this test suggestion. I was
wondering what your thoughts were on a test like this and if you might
consider implementing. If not, I will consider writing an external app to
run this kind of test, however, it would be much better if supported by
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Landry
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion request for comments...
Scott, I didn't see any response from you about this test suggestion. I was
wondering what your thoughts were on a test
of
a legitimate message.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Kami Razvan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion request for comments...
Bill:
Would it not be a more general test if one could AND various
Scott, I didn't see any response from you about this test suggestion. I was
wondering what your thoughts were on a test like this and if you might
consider implementing.
We definitely are considering it. The first step is going to be how to
implement it, which may be a difficult decision.
, December 11, 2003 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion request for comments...
Scott, I didn't see any response from you about this test suggestion. I
was
wondering what your thoughts were on a test like this and if you might
consider implementing.
We definitely
Why not use SMTP auth? I suppose this might be a problem is you aren't
using Imail 8.x(?)
Burzin
At 12:32 PM 12/7/2003, you wrote:
Scott, you have probably seen requests like this before, however, I think
this would be a great way to support most corporate and some ISP e-mail
domains with a
10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion request for comments...
Why not use SMTP auth? I suppose this might be a problem is you aren't
using Imail 8.x(?)
Burzin
At 12:32 PM 12/7/2003, you wrote:
Scott, you have probably seen requests like this before, however, I think
Bill..
This goes well along the line of the subject that was discussed a while back
and one that could help a great deal.
Right now we are concentrating on negative aspects of the email - to
minimize FP and even further reduce CPU we should give some attention to
some positive aspects as well.
Just wanted to make a correction to what I said. The attachment
exclusion would need to be virtually universal as mail clients will
attach images inline by default.
Matt
Matthew Bramble wrote:
I requested the same thing about a month ago. It would be a solid test
with a high degree
John..
What I actually like to see is:
1: REMOVE all HTML
2: Test see if anything is left behind..
That will take care of 100% of JPG only emails..
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Monday, October
] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion
Is it possible or practical to create a test that will check to see if
the
body is only HTML, and if so, if the amount of total characters is small
1: REMOVE all HTML
2: Test see if anything is left behind..
That will take care of 100% of JPG only emails..
As a photographer (part time for over 30 years...), I often send emails that
have a subject and an attached JPG or PSD file(s). I know I am not alone in
this method of sending image
I requested the same thing about a month ago. It would be a solid test
with a high degree of certainty as long as you defeated the test for
any E-mail containing non-inline attachments (as per the issue you
pointed out).
Here's a link back to that discussion in the archive:
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
|Sheldon Koehler
|Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:18 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Test suggestion
|
|
| 1: REMOVE all HTML
| 2: Test see if anything is left behind..
|
| That will take
Is it possible or practical to create a test that will check
to see if the body is only HTML, and if so, if the amount of
total characters is small, fail?
We have some test's in the latest beta release of SpamChk. (with mime
support)
There are possible results like
Mail is HTML
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
Test suggestion
I requested the same thing about a month ago. It
would be a solid test with a high degree of certainty as long as you defeated
the test for any E-mail containing non-inline attachments (as per the issue you
pointed out
20 matches
Mail list logo
