Hello Wolfgang,
Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:39:09 AM, you wrote:
LW>> That's because such a rule won't work. All manner of real mail ends up
LW>> sending things that have a real link address different from the one shown
in
LW>> the link. Often it is a very minor difference, like https vs http,
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:29, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> Monday, December 6, 2004, 7:39:09 AM, you wrote:
>
> LW>> That's because such a rule won't work. All manner of real mail ends up
> LW>> sending things that have a real link address different from the one
> shown in
> LW>>
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 6:44 PM -0800 Bill Randle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Obviously, these are tailored for each specific message, so it's
not a generic solution, but it can help. Currently, there are
signatures for 18 different banking phish and two auction phish.
Additionally, if you
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 20:00, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> --On Monday, December 06, 2004 6:44 PM -0800 Bill Randle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, these are tailored for each specific message, so it's
> > not a generic solution, but it can help. Currently, there are
> > signatures for 18
Hello Bob,
thanks for getting back on that.
The problem with these mails - they may not be spam, they may not be fraud
either,
but they impose a different kind of threat by lowering recipients'
thresholds on security.
I have had that argument "well, I read that mail, and nothing bad happen
>I am also not sure whether anti spam is the proper place to deal with these
>messages - if they
It is probably a good a place as any.
SA 2.6x had some problems that made catching several of the more common forms
verry difficult, using rules. It probably could have been solved by a source
p
