At 08:53 24-04-2008, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598 0.11440.801 0.752.70 MIME_BASE64_TEXT
It's not useful as a spam rule, not sure why it has such a high score. I'd
probably just make it an info rule if anything uses it, or
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598 0.11440.801 0.752.70 MIME_BASE64_TEXT
It's not useful as a spam rule, not sure why it has such a high score. I'd
probably just make it an info rule if anything uses it, or otherwise remove it.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at
I think it used to be good, but as Jason notes, that formatting quirk
has become more common in ham and less in spam (there was probably one
botnet using it heavily).
feel free to lower the score.
--j.
Theo Van Dinter writes:
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598
At 08:53 24-04-2008, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Looking at yesterday's mass-check results:
0.445 0.4598 0.11440.801 0.752.70 MIME_BASE64_TEXT
It's not useful as a spam rule, not sure why it has such a high score. I'd
probably just make it an info rule if anything uses it, or
Hi there
I'm getting more and more valid email from Windows environments that
have been totally encoded in BASE64. Mixtures of Unicode and
forwarding/replying seems to trigger things like Exchange to just
re-encode the whole thing as Base64.
Looking through our logs I can see a fair amount
