On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 19:50 +0200, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On søn 11 jul 2010 17:38:33 CEST, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote
> > Anyway. The distinction between spam and phish was not my point. Neither
> > was it, whether "spammed URI" clamav third-party signatures match on
> > them just like URIBL and SURBL do.
>
> as recived
>
> X-Amavis-Alert: INFECTED, message contains virus:
> Heuristics.Safebrowsing.Suspected-malware_safebrowsing.clamav.net
Benny, your point is?
Anyway, I was wearing my moderator hat when I initially told the OP
about his mistake. There was no invitation to argue about a non-issue.
And I really don't think this sub-thread is worth pursuing further.
guenther -- one of the list moderators
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
