1 hit of comments with the 10 parameter since
10/1/05... If it matters it was spam.
- Original Message -
From:
Goran Jovanovic
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:24
AM
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments
Test
Back in
Back in the beginning of last year there
was some talk about the COMMENTS test and its effectiveness. I would like to
know if others are using this test anymore and if so how well is it performing
for you. For me it is hitting a very small percentage of my e-mail 0.16% and I
am having FPs w
I am just looking through some of the built in declude tests that I have
been running unsuccessfully and the COMMENTS test is one of them. Have
any of you had great success with this test? How have you used this test
successfully? I am currently using it to look for 6,8 & 10 comments but
am
I am just looking through some of the built in declude tests
that I have been running unsuccessfully and the COMMENTS test is one of them.
Have any of you had great success with this test? How have you used this
test successfully? I am currently using it to look for 6,8 & 10
comments but
Does Medication work as a filter?
Yes, but it isn't necessary, as:
If Declude takes off the <...> then we should just use Medication since
really Medicat can not be detected.
you can just use "Medication".
That's why I say that it really isn't an issue -- while it isn't possible
to detect the s
Hayer
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Omar,
I get tons of this stuff too - but it is easy to filter on
for example in your bodyfilter
have lines like:
BODY2 CONTAINSMedicat
Kami,
The filters do work with the embeded html. I just sent myself a test
email with the
Medicat
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:55:50 -0500
Organi
Kami - Interesting - and very clever insight.
Scott - can I filter on "Medicat
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Date sent: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:55:50 -0500
Organization: ClickandPledge.com
Se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Hayer
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Omar,
I get tons of this stuff too - but it is easy to filter on for example in
your bodyfilter have lines like:
BODY2 CO
Omar,
I get tons of this stuff too - but it is easy to filter on
for example in your bodyfilter
have lines like:
BODY2 CONTAINSMedicatio
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments test
Date sent: Wed, 24 De
Maybe im not quite familiar with the workings of the COMMENTS test, but
shouldn't the included text trigger that test?
FAQ. :)
> Our
This is not an HTML comment -- you can search the archives for more details.
If not, what suggestions do you have? I see so much spam slip by that has
this chare
Maybe im not quite familiar with the workings of the COMMENTS test, but
shouldn't the included text trigger that test?
If not, what suggestions do you have? I see so much spam slip by that has
this charectristscs.
Thanks,
Our US Licensed Doctors
will
Prescribes Your Medication For
Free
R. Scott Perry wrote:
The problem is that it is nearly impossible to determine which are
valid HTML tags and which are not -- that would require a database of
known good HTML tags, which would need to be constantly updated.
This was the first filter that I tried writing actually :) I got a li
Just an observation.. It seems like the Comments test is not being
triggered as often as I see it used..
FAQ. :)
I thought you stated a while back that the comments test now picks up any
attempt to break words.. E.g.
No -- it just isn't possible.
The COMMENTS test detects anti-filter comments
Title: Comments test
Scott:
Just an observation.. It seems like the Comments test is not being triggered as often as I see it used..
I thought you stated a while back that the comments test now picks up any attempt to break words.. E.g.
=
Banned CD! Government don't
Ok, I'll add a minimum number in to help in this case.
Cheers
Jools
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:51:16 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Here's another email with a problem, the comments test has been fired
>>but there is no html portion, there are >file that seems to be triggering it.
>>
>>Is it possible to mak
Here's another email with a problem, the comments test has been fired
but there is no html portion, there are
Is it possible to make this test just look inside Content-Type:
text/html sections or even open and close tags?
Not at this time. That's going to require full MIME decoding, which is
g
I think you need to skip attachments or at least make it an option in the
CFG file.
That's something that we are looking into. Note, however, that few
anti-spam programs have full MIME support in them (Ipswitch doesn't for
example). MIME decoding is very complex (it took Ipswitch years to get
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] COMMENTS test needs adjusting?
>This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
>in the email
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has Very interesting -- that's the first time I've ever seen a .PDF file that
was encoded in a way that was still human readable.
We are getting close to the point where we may add full MIM
Hi,
This email caused 5 COMMENTS to be caught even though there is no HTML
in the email as the attachment text has
To: "Kate Priddle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FW: Orange Print
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:53:41 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Scott, does the COMMENTS test also catch bogus HTML tags?
No. It is only designed to catch HTML comments that are designed
specifically to bypass filters, such as "I am a spammer"
(which would appear in the mail client as "I am a spammer").
I've seen rather a lot of spam HTML messages where th
3 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Comments Test
Specifically, 1.67 would count a comment like
"...", where the comment was embedded between
HTML commands. 1.68 won't count those, so even 1 of the comments that the
test catches in 1.68 should ind
I've seen a newsletter with 27 comments (motely fool), but there seems to
be a sweet spot between 10 and 20. Just make sure you use it as a
weighted test.
FWIW, there was a problem with v1.67 where it could catch standard comments
(such as the ones found in the motley fool newsletter), but wit
I've seen a newsletter with 27 comments (motely fool), but there seems to be a sweet
spot between 10 and 20. Just make sure you use it as a weighted test.
I'm expecting the rationale & configuration that works with html counting to also work
with the new subject count tests, for similar reasons
For the comments test has anyone found an acceptable value that seems to
trap a lot of spam?
Thanks
Darrell
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EM
26 matches
Mail list logo