Re: SpamSender with 2 @-signs in the address

2018-12-05 Thread RW
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 21:15:20 -0700 Grant Taylor wrote: > As far as I know, (other than LONG deprecated source routing) the @ > character is a reserved special character and can't be used used as > part of the local part. Syntactically, it can be used as long as it's properly quoted or escaped.

No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Mark London
No longer just embedded =9D characters. From: =?utf-8?B?bmlnaHRt0LByZQ==?= To: Subject: You are my victim. Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:56:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="a0d0993ce53319101c19af03d5311b0976b26b" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on

Office 365 and the To header

2018-12-05 Thread Joseph Brennan
FYI, I have just seen email from an O 365 system with no "To:" header. "To" has not been a required header for a long time, but still I was not aware of any legitimate software that sends without it. Use of an empty list like "To: Undisclosed recipients:;" must be a lost art. This might affect

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Mark London
The __UNICODE_OBFU_ZW rule is not being triggered on this email. Maybe it needs updating? - Mark On 12/5/2018 11:19 AM, Mark London wrote: No longer just embedded =9D characters. From: =?utf-8?B?bmlnaHRt0LByZQ==?= To: Subject: You are my victim. Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:56:36 -0800

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Grant Taylor
On 12/05/2018 02:45 PM, John Hardin wrote: I've added a "too many [ascii][unicode][ascii]" rule based on that but I suspect it will be pretty FP-prone and will be pretty large if we want to avoid whack-a-mole syndrome. For this, normalize + bayes is probably the best bet. Is it possible to

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Grant Taylor
On 12/05/2018 03:27 PM, John Hardin wrote: Take a look at replace_rules in the repo (both standard and sandboxes). Thank you for the reference. replace_rules look very intriguing. Link - Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags - tags for SpamAssassin rules -

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Bill Cole wrote: On 5 Dec 2018, at 16:45, John Hardin wrote: Those aren't zero-width, those are just standard Unicode obfuscations of regular ASCII text. Not precisely. In this case they seem to all be Cyrillic characters which happen to look like Latin characters that

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Grant Taylor wrote: On 12/05/2018 02:45 PM, John Hardin wrote: I've added a "too many [ascii][unicode][ascii]" rule based on that but I suspect it will be pretty FP-prone and will be pretty large if we want to avoid whack-a-mole syndrome. For this, normalize + bayes is

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Bill Cole
On 5 Dec 2018, at 16:45, John Hardin wrote: Those aren't zero-width, those are just standard Unicode obfuscations of regular ASCII text. Not precisely. In this case they seem to all be Cyrillic characters which happen to look like Latin characters that have ASCII encodings. It's not

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Mark London wrote: No longer just embedded =9D characters. From: =?utf-8?B?bmlnaHRt0LByZQ==?= To: Subject: You are my victim. Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:56:36 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="a0d0993ce53319101c19af03d5311b0976b26b"

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 12/5/2018 4:50 PM, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 12/05/2018 02:45 PM, John Hardin wrote: >> I've added a "too many [ascii][unicode][ascii]" rule based on that >> but I suspect it will be pretty FP-prone and will be pretty large if >> we want to avoid whack-a-mole syndrome. For this, normalize +

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Grant Taylor wrote: On 12/05/2018 03:27 PM, John Hardin wrote: Take a look at replace_rules in the repo (both standard and sandboxes). Thank you for the reference. replace_rules look very intriguing. Link - Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::ReplaceTags - tags for SpamAssassin

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Grant Taylor
On 12/5/18 5:43 PM, John Hardin wrote: Potentially, but it's hard to use something like that in regular rule REs. That sort of smarts would probably need to be in a plugin. Maybe (from my naive point of view) if not probably (from your more experienced point of view). I would think that it

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Grant Taylor
On 12/5/18 7:55 PM, Bill Cole wrote: Yes. There is no automatic 'shortcircuiting' of rules. Okay. You say "automatic". Is there a "non-automatic" way? :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Bill Cole
On 5 Dec 2018, at 20:37, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 12/5/18 5:43 PM, John Hardin wrote: >> Potentially, but it's hard to use something like that in regular rule REs. >> That sort of smarts would probably need to be in a plugin. > > Maybe (from my naive point of view) if not probably (from your

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Bill Cole
On 5 Dec 2018, at 22:29, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 12/5/18 7:55 PM, Bill Cole wrote: >> Yes. There is no automatic 'shortcircuiting' of rules. > > Okay. > > You say "automatic". Is there a "non-automatic" way? :-) perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::Shortcircuit -- Bill Cole signature.asc

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread Bill Cole
On 5 Dec 2018, at 11:45, Mark London wrote: The __UNICODE_OBFU_ZW rule is not being triggered on this email. Maybe it needs updating? - Mark FWIW, I just added a "MIXED_ES" rule to my sandbox which does catch on anything with a suspiciously large number of characters that are visually like

Re: SpamSender with 2 @-signs in the address

2018-12-05 Thread Grant Taylor
On 12/05/2018 06:17 AM, RW wrote: Syntactically, it can be used as long as it's properly quoted or escaped. The use of such addresses is discouraged under SMTP, but only with a "SHOULD NOT". I wonder how many user interfaces will balk at the (Source) Route Addressing. I mean, if they can't

Re: No longer just embedded =9D characters in blackmail emails.

2018-12-05 Thread John Hardin
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Mark London wrote: The __UNICODE_OBFU_ZW rule is not being triggered on this email. Maybe it needs updating? - Mark Will do, I don't have a zero response time as much as I wish I did... :) -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/