Right, but __STY_INVIS is currently tag-blind (it only looks for the
style="" clause), so it hits that, and if lots of ham is hiding tracking
images that way that might explain the poor S/O.
I suspect that might be the case.
The vast majority of invisible garbage I see is hidden in a ...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, Loren Wilton wrote:
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Such rules are there. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, lots of ham uses
"invisible" text so it's not useful as a spam sign by itself and it's hard
to come up
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Such rules are there. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, lots of ham
uses "invisible" text so it's not useful as a spam sign by itself and
it's hard to come up with any useful combination rules.
I
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, @lbutlr wrote:
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Interesting. I remember in the early days of html spam there were various
rules to tag messages as spam when they had content
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:58:07 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, @lbutlr wrote:
>
> > On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton
> > wrote:
> >> I just got a batch of spams containing
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ... various rules to tag messages as spam when they had content that
> >
On 17 Dec 2020, at 09:58, John Hardin wrote:
> Such rules are there. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, lots of ham uses
> "invisible" text so it's not useful as a spam sign by itself and it's hard to
> come up with any useful combination rules.
In the "Archive" folder on my work email there
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, @lbutlr wrote:
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
I just got a batch of spams containing
Interesting. I remember in the early days of html spam there were various rules
to tag messages as spam when they had content that did not display. (Possibly
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 22:21:12 -0800
Loren Wilton wrote:
> I just got a batch of spams containing
>
>
>
> That was followed by about 2K bytes of garbage containing GUIDs and
> links to putatively some youtube video. The span was then terminated
> correctly, the body of the spam, and then the
On 16 Dec 2020, at 23:21, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I just got a batch of spams containing
>
>
Interesting. I remember in the early days of html spam there were various rules
to tag messages as spam when they had content that did not display. (Possibly
pre-SpamAssasin or at least pre my use of
