sandbox/felicity/70_other.cf says # Ok, I've said in the past that full rules are evil and that we should never # use them. While I do think that they're nasty and are almost always not the # most efficient way to go about things, in this case, unfortunately, # I think it actually is the most efficient way to do this search. :( # BTW: a raw (non-encoded) NUL char (ASCII 0) is forbidden by RFC2822, though # it seems to show up in spams a lot these days. MTAs -- deny these mails!
I'm thinking of trying matches against (parts of) binary attachments. The only way I can think of doing this is using full rules to match fragments of base64. Also, I believe that a lot of legitimate messages (from Microsoft MUAs) contain NULs, typically at the end of attachments. Therefore my servers strip NULs rather than rejecting them. Insert usual rant about the quality of standards conformance in legitimage email :-( Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FORTIES CROMARTY FORTH TYNE DOGGER: SOUTHERLY 6 TO GALE 8. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. MAINLY FAIR. GOOD.
