At 20:33 13-08-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
In specific, the original question referenced SARE rulesets and thus
the obvious assumption was that it was a SARE rule, and I had done
the search and hadn't found the rule so I needed to know which SARE
ruleset that I wasn't currently downloading provided t
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:31:05 -0700:
No, I didn't. I asked where a given rule was. I was given a reference
to a page that described how to set up sa-update.
You were given the exact name of the rule, that reference to sa-update was
an additional courtesy a
27;t installed PDFInfo correctly?
> Now is the question sufficiently illuminated?
Not at all. This is your first posting in this thread. This thread is about
"rule for empty text + GIF or PDF". Your posting is about "how do I install or
make use of PDFInfo". So, please go ahead
On Saturday 11 August 2007, Bob Proulx wrote:
>Jo Rhett wrote:
>> No, I didn't. I asked where a given rule was. I was given a reference
>> to a page that described how to set up sa-update.
>
>That page not only described how to set up sa-update it also described
>where the files were stored. Als
Jo Rhett wrote on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:31:05 -0700:
> No, I didn't. I asked where a given rule was. I was given a reference
> to a page that described how to set up sa-update.
You were given the exact name of the rule, that reference to sa-update was
an additional courtesy as it is easy to kno
Jo Rhett wrote:
> No, I didn't. I asked where a given rule was. I was given a reference
> to a page that described how to set up sa-update.
That page not only described how to set up sa-update it also described
where the files were stored. Also SM included the name of the rule
that was expecte
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:30:37 -0700:
Thank you for the very useless reference to sa-update.
Please, don't do this! You got a nice answer that exactly answered your
question.
No, I didn't. I asked where a given rule was. I was given a reference
to a page
Jo Rhett wrote on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:30:37 -0700:
> Thank you for the very useless reference to sa-update.
Please, don't do this! You got a nice answer that exactly answered your
question.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.c
SM wrote:
At 19:39 10-08-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Where? I'm using sa-update and almost all of the sare rulesets, and
I'm getting a metric ton of these. Searching rulesemporium for
"empty" or "pdf" gets nothing.
TVD_PDF_FINGER01 Mail matches standard pdf spam fingerprint
http://wiki.apac
At 19:39 10-08-2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
Where? I'm using sa-update and almost all of the sare rulesets, and
I'm getting a metric ton of these. Searching rulesemporium for
"empty" or "pdf" gets nothing.
TVD_PDF_FINGER01 Mail matches standard pdf spam fingerprint
http://wiki.apache.org/spam
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Sure, one for PDF has been available via sa-update for weeks.
Where? I'm using sa-update and almost all of the sare rulesets, and I'm
getting a metric ton of these. Searching rulesemporium for "empty" or
"pdf" gets nothing.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance ... net philant
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:19:47PM -0700, clsgis wrote:
> I want to give those a really high score. False positives when there is no
> text in
> the message are acceptable. Hoping someone has a rule to do it.
Sure, one for PDF has been available via sa-update for weeks.
--
Randomly Selected Ta
I'm seeing a huge spam run from well distributed bots. Multi part MIME
messages
with an empty (three blank lines) text/plain part, *no* text/html part, and
an
attachment in GIF or PDF format.
I want to give those a really high score. False positives when there is no
text in
the message are acce
13 matches
Mail list logo
