From: Magnus Bäck (magnusdsek.lth.se)
Date: Tue May 02 2006 - 15:01:22 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 21:48 CEST,
     Charles Gregory <cgregoryhwcn.org> wrote:

> I don't suppose there is a 'stupid pet trick' that will let me
> perform a simple 'body_check' on base64 encoded text bodies?

Nope.

> Like some simple tool that can convert my chosen text string
> into base64 so that I can search for *that* as a body_check ?

Sure, there are many such programs and scripting languages but since a
given string has more than one possible Base64 equivalent it would not
be practical.

> I don't want to get into 'add ons' and plugins. Just add something
> suitable to body_checks to catch these morons who base64 spam.

Stop trying to use body_checks and friends as the spam blocker of
choice. You will spend far too much time maintaining your expressions
and you still won't come even close to the accuracy of "real" antispam
solutions. body_checks is indeed useful for some tasks, but it simply
isn't a generic spam stopper.

> I'm running an older Postfix on RH9. So some options may not be
> available....

The option of upgrading Postfix is always available, should the need
arise.

> Oh, I'm also open to any hints for header/body checks that catch
> improper use of base64 (as distinguished from proper usage). Thanks.

Please define "improper use of Base64".

--
Magnus Bäck
magnusdsek.lth.se

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]