On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:25:49 -0600 (CST), David B Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ie: V...i..a.gr..a
As I suggested in my email, there's lots of combinations that spammers
can do to avoid the original rule. There's also lots of ways to
construct the rule to get a broader hit-base, at
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:43:15 -0500, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:33 PM 12/8/2003, David B Funk wrote:
Small enhancement suggestion, modify each one of those '\W' with '?'
thus making successive obfuscating characters optional. With your
rule there -must- be an obfuscating
On 8 Dec 2003, Scott A Crosby wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:43:15 -0500, Matt Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or *, to catch more than one obfuscating character..
ie: V...i..a.gr..a
As I suggested in my email, there's lots of combinations that spammers
can do to avoid the original
