BTW, I hope it isn't oo much to ask, but would you mind *NOT* quoting
entire previous posts when you're not addressing specific elements of
them? Everyone on this list has access to the original
messages - we don't
need countless copies of them resent to us at the bottoms of
on by MS OutBreak.
I truly apologize, it was negligent of me. How many points except that
important one did you make above? Did I miss anything except that I'm a
fool and you don't like my e-mail client?
What constitutes _accurate_ text to you, and to the next guy are
very different. What happens when someone does:
<<< text written by joe schmoe >>>
For quoting? Most likely, you blintz it. All.
So lets assume you mean that I will fail to identify the above as
accurate text. And you are right, I will. The point I have been trying
to make a few times now is that in this case it does not matter. I want
to make a temporary variable, do some (by all means not perfect)
filtering into that variable and see if I find some "hidden messages"
like the ones I have given you an example of earlier. If I fail some
times (My little filter strategy can of course be easily bypassed as you
pointed out) that is perfectly fine with me since I did not alter the
original message and I will end up with another spam in my inbox.
If they're not PAIRED (open <ds> and close </ds>, even though that
legit token), then how do you know you're parsing correct token pairs
removing the supposed html constructs?
Again, I am not trying to pair them (or remove them in pairs), I just
want to remove them to be able to read those "hidden messages". Legit or
not doesn't matter, The spam I receive uses an about even amount of
legit and non-legit "tokens" to hide words.
I thank you and Paul you for the comments and for explaining to me what
procmail is meant for and what is not meant for.
Thanks to Paul for the good example.
Lirasko Netsolutions | www.lirasko.se
Mobile: +1 530 400 79 64
Fax: +46 (0) 709 641 085
procmail mailing list