Kai Schaetzl wrote:
As I understand even those clients that produce empty style tags do this in the
header and not in the body. There's a chance that you FP on body/style sections
that appear in text/plain parts (e.g. samples) - AFAIK there is no test that
matches only in text/html parts,
Kenneth Porter wrote on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:59:54 -0800:
A simple-minded autodetect system would just look at the first tokens to
spot HTML tags, like html, body,
div, or p. An initial paragraph
of
plain text would be enough to prevent it from interpreting later HTML
examples as making
Michael Scheidell wrote on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:27:50 -0500:
which is why I think it should be in one of those html_eval plugins,
I agree, it would be more helpful and less ressource-hungry there.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:41:51 +0100:
Aren't there any MUAs that try to autodetect the right content type?
Even from microsoft?
No. If they would then you couldn't send any plain text messages that
*discuss* HTML code with examples.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin,
--On Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:31 PM +0100 Kai Schaetzl
mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Aren't there any MUAs that try to autodetect the right content type?
Even from microsoft?
No. If they would then you couldn't send any plain text messages that
*discuss* HTML code with examples.
A
Ned Slider wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:02:19 +:
Also, I have a low scoring generic 'body' rule for common drug names
that should have hit on Dan's mail (and your reply) if SA did strip that
junk, but it obviously doesn't (at least not for me).
It will not work on these messages as they
Ned Slider wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:02:19 +:
Also, I have a low scoring generic 'body' rule for common drug names
that should have hit on Dan's mail (and your reply) if SA did strip that
junk, but it obviously doesn't (at least not for me).
On 30.01.09 16:31, Kai Schaetzl
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ned Slider wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:02:19 +:
Also, I have a low scoring generic 'body' rule for common drug names
that should have hit on Dan's mail (and your reply) if SA did strip that
junk, but it obviously doesn't (at least not for me).
It will not work on
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:00:47 -0800, Kelson kel...@speed.net wrote:
On the subject of style vs style type=text/css
*Technically* the TYPE attribute is required in HTML 4, but in practice,
no one really uses anything other than CSS, and most browsers will
assume it.
The current draft of HTML 5
--On Friday, January 30, 2009 4:41 PM +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas
uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
Aren't there any MUAs that try to autodetect the right content type?
Even from microsoft?
IE had a nasty habit of ignoring the MIME type in HTTP headers and
rendering HTML even when one wanted it
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 12:56 -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
IE had a nasty habit of ignoring the MIME type in HTTP headers and
rendering HTML even when one wanted it displayed as text/plain. So it
wouldn't surprise me if Outlook (Express) had the same annoying
helpfulness.
I've wasted more
is is EVER acceptable to have an empty style tag?
(appears that anything inside an empty style/style is not displayed.
see more and more of this in spam. can deal with this with a raw body
check, but how about adding it to the official SA html checks?
body
Michael Scheidell wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:21:32 -0500:
is is EVER acceptable to have an empty style tag?
it's not valid HTML but what mail client does send valid HTML?
(appears that anything inside an empty style/style
is not displayed.
same goes for a style tag with type.
body
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 15:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:21:32 -0500:
If it doesn't display what is it good for? Faking bayes?
No, obfuscating the actual display:
Buy Vistylesdfghjnkrdfbn/styleAgstyleghbfghfgh/stylera!
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 07:21 -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
is is EVER acceptable to have an empty style tag?
(appears that anything inside an empty style/style is not
displayed.
see more and more of this in spam. can deal with this with a raw body
check, but how about adding it to the
of it.
From: Michael Scheidell [mailto:scheid...@secnap.net]
Sent: 29 January 2009 12:22
To: SpamAssassin Users List
Cc: Wazir Shpoon; Jose Montero
Subject: html experts: empty style tags.
is is EVER acceptable to have an empty style tag?
(appears
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
(appears that anything inside an empty style/style is not displayed.
see more and more of this in spam. can deal with this with a raw body
check, but how about adding it to the official SA html checks?
For a long time I have had local rules that
Dan McDonald wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:56:03 -0600:
No, obfuscating the actual display:
Buy Vistylesdfghjnkrdfbn/styleAgstyleghbfghfgh/stylera!
but SA strips all HTML away before content processing, including that
garbage within the style tags. And from Michael's description it doesn't
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Dan McDonald wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:56:03 -0600:
No, obfuscating the actual display:
Buy Vistylesdfghjnkrdfbn/styleAgstyleghbfghfgh/stylera!
but SA strips all HTML away before content processing, including that
garbage within the style tags. And from Michael's
John Hardin wrote:
Unfortunately they hit often enough on legitimate mail sent by
braindead MUAs (or, more precisely, MUAs with braindead HTML
editors/generators) that they cannot be scored very strongly.
you have LEGIT EMAIL with this in it?
style
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Unfortunately they hit often enough on legitimate mail sent by
braindead MUAs (or, more precisely, MUAs with braindead HTML
editors/generators) that they cannot be scored very strongly.
you have LEGIT EMAIL with this in it?
style
I do too.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:50:32PM +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
you have LEGIT EMAIL with this in it?
style
I do too. AFAICT, it's Microsoft related.
taking a look at my january corpus, there are a relative lot of hits
for that, including things like STYLE/STYLE. a lot of the mails,
as
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Michael Scheidell wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Unfortunately they hit often enough on legitimate mail sent by braindead
MUAs (or, more precisely, MUAs with braindead HTML editors/generators)
that they cannot be scored very strongly.
you have LEGIT EMAIL with this in it?
--On Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:34 AM -0800 John Hardin
jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
For a long time I have had local rules that score on empty STYLE, FONT,
STRONG, SPAN and A tags, and strings of adjacent FONT tags.
Unfortunately they hit often enough on legitimate mail sent by braindead
MUAs
--On Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:09 PM -0500 Michael Scheidell
scheid...@secnap.net wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Unfortunately they hit often enough on legitimate mail sent by braindead
MUAs (or, more precisely, MUAs with braindead HTML editors/generators)
that they cannot be scored very
On the subject of style vs style type=text/css
*Technically* the TYPE attribute is required in HTML 4, but in practice,
no one really uses anything other than CSS, and most browsers will
assume it.
The current draft of HTML 5 recognizes this, and makes TYPE explicitly
optional for STYLE,
26 matches
Mail list logo
