On Tuesday 29 June 2004 08:27 pm, George Georgalis wrote:
> >I wonder if there is something about that message that is hard on SA?
> >It is attached as uuencoded file KMAMQDMXXVGHNIGCLYSH=hotmail.com.txt
>
> begin 600 KMAMQDMXXVGHNIGCLYSH=hotmail.com.txt
> M1G)O;2!V=G1A87IJ971Z0&AO=&UA:6PN8V]M(%1U92!*=6X@,CD@,3DZ,SDZ
> M,#`@,C`P-`I296-E:[EMAIL PROTECTED])O;2!C<&4P,#`S-#<S834X,F8M8VTP,&4P
> M-F8Q8C!C9#8N8W!E+FYE="YC86)L92YR;V=E<G,N8V]M("@V.2XQ.34N.3<N
> M,C(U*0H@(&)Y(&EU>'1A+F-O;2!W:71H(%--5%`[(#(Y($IU;B`R,#`T(#(S
Must be because the little message below took 43.6 secs to process, while
the norm now seems to be between 3.5 and 11 seconds. I stil question
though why it seems to take so long to process a 'clean' message as opposed
to a 'spam' message, almost twice as long it seems.
----9420391856849388962
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
dGhpcyBsaW5rIHdpbGwgTWFrZSB5b3Ugfjo6OkI6Okk6R35+DQoNCg0KaHR0cDovL2cubXNu
LmNvbS8wVVMhczkucGFyYXhpYWxfM2NoZWVycy9NWS5jb2ZmZXI/aHR0cDovL3JhZmFlbC5p
bmZvbWF4eC5uZXQ6ODUvYWx3YXlzbGFyZ2UvDQoNCg0KdGhpcyBpcyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBs
aW5rLg0KDQpodHRwOi8vZy5tc24uY29tLzBVUyFzOS5jb21ldGFyeV8zY2hlZXJzL01ZLmxp
bmRiZXJnP2h0dHA6Ly9jaG9pcm1hc3Rlci5pbmZvbWF4eC5uZXQ6ODUvYWx3YXlzbGFyZ2Uv
bGVhdmUvDQoNCg0KNV9oWzEw
--
Chris
Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org
7:03pm up 2 days, 21 min, 2 users, load average: 0.53, 0.36, 0.38
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dying is one of the few things that can be done as easily lying down.
-- Woody Allen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Live - From Virgin Radio UK Virgin Radio Classic Tracks - The original
classic rock station
