> > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Geoff Soper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:26 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: harsh image rules
>>But I'm in the position where anything I've subscribed to, any message >>from a company I deal with, anything relating to a website I >>interact with >>goes to a unique and identifiable address which isn't scanned >>for spam but >>can easily be routed to /dev/null if they start abusing that address. >>Hence only messages from private individuals come to my SA scanned >>personal address and I don't think my ruthless '<img="http://' >>rule plan >>would catch any of their messages. >>Can anyone think why a message from a private individual would ever >>contain '<img="http://' ? >> > > Sure can...and I hate these! > > Incredimail, kornet , smileycentral, and a bunch of web based emails. > > I see your point now. *you* could do this, but on a gateway system for a > company I would not recommend it. I say write the rule and score it at .01 > and see how it goes. Those are good points, I think I may abandon that idea. It was only ever intended as an idea for my personal situation, it would be a very very bad idea for most people! Thanks, Geoff
