Kenneth Porter wrote on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:49:47 -0700: > For legacy "un-XML", it's probably reasonable to let them get away with it. > But once something declares itself XML, I think it's fair to ask for a bit > more compliance, at the very least well-formedness.
This is far away from reality. What makes you think that XHTML mail would be any better formed than HTML? I bet some makers of those many crap HTML web mailers will just rename the Doctype if a client asks them about XHTML compatibility. Or add that Doctype and DTD finally. > > Does SA include any ability to test for this, and get some kind of score, > perhaps a simple error count, that can be used in a plugin? I'd like to try > some metas that test for an XML or XHTML declaration plus some threshold of > errors (particularly mismatches in delimiters) to see how the degree of > badness (coupled with the implied promise of goodness) correlates with spam. XML parsing is slow. You probably gain little accuracy with a lot of performance hit. Have you already tested on the sheer use of XHTML? Maybe there's no spammer using it, so you could use it for whitelist scoring, at least for a while? Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
