On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 18:05 +0100, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > > Where did you come across that rule at all? How did you get the
> > > > impression it should be in your stock install?
> >
> > Would you mind contributing to this thread? Please do answer my
> > questions. They are not rhetorical, and I do ask them for a reason.
> I came across the rule because Adam Katz pasted me the results of *his*
> SpamAssassin's analysis of a particular spam I got. This rule matched.
Ah, I see.
> It seemed like an image-only email was the kind of thing that was very
> sinister and that this kind of rule would've been added to SA a long
> time ago. I guess I got that wrong, sorry. He must have added the rule
> manually.
Yes, he did. Usually, custom rules are somehow prefixed to distinguish
them from stock rules, e.g. with the authors initials. Also, when
checking samples for others, non-stock rules are generally mentioned
explicitly. Maybe Adam forgot in this case.
Anyway, this explains the confusion and us barking up the wrong tree. :)
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
