On 7/12/2005 8:59 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Note that in business circles "content" includes the subject. As far
> as I know, rawbody won't see a subject. It is fairly common to send
> one line questions in the subject with an empty body, and one line
> replies likewise.
I have trained my user
> header __L_MSG_HAS_C_TYPE_M Content-Type =~ /^(message|multipart)/i
> rawbody __L_MSG_HAS_BODY /\S/
>
> describe L_MSG_NO_BODY Raw message does not have any body data
> meta L_MSG_NO_BODY (!__L_MSG_C_TYPE_M && !__L_MSG_BODY)
> score L_MSG_NO_BODY 0.1
>
> BTW, I am doing this so that postfix can t
On 7/10/2005 4:41 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> On 7/10/2005 3:49 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>>However, if you want something like this, just off the top of my head:
>>
>>header __HAS_TOTo =~/\S/
>>body__HAS_BODY/\S/
>>metaEMPTY_MSG(!__HAS_TO && !__HAS_BODY)
>
> Good idea. rawbody
On 7/10/2005 4:56 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Rawbody will miss the subject, so you will need to add a test for that too.
I'm not looking for that
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Rawbody will miss the subject, so you will need to add a test for that too.
Loren
On 7/10/2005 3:49 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> However, if you want something like this, just off the top of my head:
>
> header __HAS_TOTo =~/\S/
> body__HAS_BODY/\S/
> metaEMPTY_MSG(!__HAS_TO && !__HAS_BODY)
Good idea. rawbody works better but the model is right.
--
Eric A.
>
> Anybody got a rule that will catch messages that don't have a body?
>
3.1.0-pre3 has this already...
-
# __MIME_ATTACHMENT defined in 20_html_tests.cf
body __NONEMPTY_BODY/\S/
meta EMPTY_MESSAGE !__MIME_ATTACHMENT && !__NONEMPTY_BODY
describe EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appe
> I guess I should have asked the obvious question:
>
> "and if so, could you post it?"
Well, I'd hoped that the 'draconian' would detract from that idea. But
since you ask anyway, I went looking. And discovered that I *don't* have a
rule for this anymore! I'm just getting by on the SARE rules
On 7/10/2005 3:12 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
>>> Anybody got a rule that will catch messages that don't have a body?
>>>
>
> There are things like that around. I have a rather draconian pesonal
> rule I use. There is a much milder form in one of the SARE rulesets.
> The problem is you can't chec
> This brings up a question. Why are these sent out? To validate addresses
> perhaps?
Virtually all of the ones I see typically also lack either or both of a
subject and a To: address. They very typically have some header information
mangled also.
My belief is that one of the spammer tools (I
On Sunday 10 Jul 2005 19:00, wrote:
> This brings up a question. Why are these sent out? To validate
> addresses perhaps?
B0rked malware infestations?
--
Rob Skedgell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpF0vvzd8FmL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This brings up a question. Why are these sent out? To validate addresses
perhaps?
- Original Message -
From: "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 11:48 AM
Subject: messages with no body
Anybody got a rule that will catch mes
Anybody got a rule that will catch messages that don't have a body?
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
13 matches
Mail list logo
