On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:36 PM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote:
That and its resistance to FP avoidance.
Despite the generality, I don't see a significant FP risk on the general unicode version.
I don't see ANY legitimate reason why an email would hard-encode long sequences of
human-readable text, in any language or character set, using HTML entities like this.
Legitimate emails can be sent with a character encoding intended for the target language
and then the content doesn't need to be entity-encoded, it can just be included
"properly" in the email.
My recollection is there were few to no FPs in the corpora test, right? Or am
I misremembering?
Fairly low; I asked the corpora owner for a review and they were all
apparently legit.
I'll reenable the base rules so we can watch their performance. I don't
think a subrule that isn't used gets published unless it's pushed with a
tflag...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One unexpected benefit of time passing more quickly as you get older
is the perceived increase in the frequency of paychecks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
595 days since the first commercial re-flight of an orbital booster (SpaceX)
