"Tony L. Svanstrom" <tony(_at_)svanstrom(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yay, I can stop doing the b64-decoding myself now (just noticed the
0.10.0- version).
I have to ask why you are bothering to decode. Has anyone yet found
a base-64-encoded *non-multipart* message that wasn't spam? I know
*I* haven't.
As Paul Chvostek <paul(_at_)it(_dot_)ca> first posted a few months ago here,
encoded
html of one part only seems a sure sign of bad intentions. As I posted
a coupld of times already in recent weeks,
:0: # 021109 () base-64-encoded html head is shrouding more than charset
* ^Content-Type:(.*\<)?text/(html|plain)
* ^Content-Transfer-Encoding:(.*\<)?base64
spammy
regularly grabs 20% of my spam and has not yet (in three months) false-pozzed.
--
dman
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail