On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:26:31PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:10:18PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote: > > Is there a fix for all the bayes poison stuff in 2.62? That's my biggest > > issue right now with 2.61. > > Not really, there's no fix for it in 2.70 either. Invisible text and > html/text differences are (relatively) easy to pick out, but most of > the bayes poisoning stuff I've seen is just random visible valid words > in mail, typically at the end. > > I can't think of any rule that would pick up on that as a trick unless > we put in full language parsing.
Usually it's after the </html>. And often three lines in the text part, usually longer words, rarely words like a or the, etc. I'm not really sure why these mails seem to not get hit -- the bayes poisoning stuff should have no effect, but they do -- I think they're pretty carefully crafted. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
