You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com> on 2004/12/10 16:13:09 UTC
Rude spammers
Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
part, and this was the plain text part:
"Get a capable html e-mailer"
Do you sense a certain frustration with us? ;)
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by b3...@theotherbell.com.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:59:35 -0800
Robert Menschel wrote:
> However, if you were in
> business and sending emails to your customers or clients, would you
> insult them with the demand "Get a capable html e-mailer"? Any company
> that does that to me loses my business without any second thoughts.
>
> I know that my company would never think of saying anything like that
> to any of our customers nor our vendors.
I second that. My company has developed a secure email product
that includes alternate text for e-mail clients who do not
support HTML (they can't render images). Our customers would
freak if we used anything but professional wording.
I also get alternate text in response to an online download
request. If that response was as rude as the ones commonly used
by spammers, I would totally ignore the entire email even though
I initiated contact.
Brenda Bell
Henniker (the only one on earth)
New Hampshire (the state with 5 seasons: black fly, tourist, foliage, ski and mud)
Re[2]: Rude spammers
Posted by Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>.
Hello Jeff,
Saturday, December 11, 2004, 12:11:18 AM, you wrote:
JC> On Friday, December 10, 2004, 11:59:35 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
JC>>> But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic
JC>>> text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see. ...
>> I know that my company would never think of saying anything like that
>> to any of our customers nor our vendors.
JC> I've seen similar portions of messages with less rude wording
JC> but similar meaning, e.g., "this message can only be properly
JC> viewed with an HTML-capable program" or something similar.
Yes, the measure of rudeness is a major decision factor.
As much as I would rather receive all email in plain text format, with
a link to a web page if graphics or other special effects were
desired, we must be able to receive emails that have embedded HTML,
and even newsletters that come in ONLY HTML, with statements like you
give.
But IMO any HTML-Only email which actively insults the recipient, or
has the audacity to command the recipient to use an HTML-email client,
is doomed here to the bit bucket.
I process dozens of newsletters here, most of which include HTML
formatting. All but one or two provide reasonably text along with
their HTML. All that use significant HTML suggest (repeat: suggest,
not demand) that their newsletter can be better read using their web
site, with link provided, or with an HTML email client.
The only emails I've ever seen come through that are insulting or
demanding in this way have been spam, scam, and phish.
So again, yes, we cannot block emails on any and all types of messages
which imply that the message is in HTML. However, we can /judiciously/
include rules which test for the more obnoxious such statements, and
score them accordingly.
I expect that in my three domains
> Get a capable html e-mailer
on a line by itself, will score somewhere between 50% and 90% of my
spam threshold.
Bob Menschel
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Friday, December 10, 2004, 11:59:35 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Hello Jeff,
> Friday, December 10, 2004, 7:52:50 PM, you wrote:
JC>> On Friday, December 10, 2004, 1:21:19 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
LW>>>> You mean something like this? Works like a charm.
>>> Agreed. Hope to have my own mass-check results of this shortly (my
>>> version is slightly different from yours). Looks real useful so far.
JC>> But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic
JC>> text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see.
JC>> It's highly lame (especially when messages should be in
JC>> plain text IMO), but it could appear in hams.
> Agreed -- the possibility of FP exists. However, if you were in
> business and sending emails to your customers or clients, would you
> insult them with the demand "Get a capable html e-mailer"? Any company
> that does that to me loses my business without any second thoughts.
> I know that my company would never think of saying anything like that
> to any of our customers nor our vendors.
I've seen similar portions of messages with less rude wording
but similar meaning, e.g., "this message can only be properly
viewed with an HTML-capable program" or something similar.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re[2]: Rude spammers
Posted by Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>.
Hello Jeff,
Friday, December 10, 2004, 7:52:50 PM, you wrote:
JC> On Friday, December 10, 2004, 1:21:19 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
LW>>> You mean something like this? Works like a charm.
>> Agreed. Hope to have my own mass-check results of this shortly (my
>> version is slightly different from yours). Looks real useful so far.
JC> But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic
JC> text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see.
JC> It's highly lame (especially when messages should be in
JC> plain text IMO), but it could appear in hams.
Agreed -- the possibility of FP exists. However, if you were in
business and sending emails to your customers or clients, would you
insult them with the demand "Get a capable html e-mailer"? Any company
that does that to me loses my business without any second thoughts.
I know that my company would never think of saying anything like that
to any of our customers nor our vendors.
Bob Menschel
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>.
--On Friday, December 10, 2004 7:52 PM -0800 Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>
wrote:
> But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic
> text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see.
>
> It's highly lame (especially when messages should be in
> plain text IMO), but it could appear in hams.
If it appears in the plain text side, it's a spam-sign. But if it appears
in the HTML side, maybe we should award it bonus negative points! ;)
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by Jeff Chan <je...@surbl.org>.
On Friday, December 10, 2004, 1:21:19 PM, Robert Menschel wrote:
> Hello Loren,
> Friday, December 10, 2004, 10:33:02 AM, you wrote:
>>> > Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
>>> > part, and this was the plain text part:
>>> > "Get a capable html e-mailer"
>>> ...
>>> I've seen this mentioned a couple of times recently. If it's really
>>> diagnostic of spamware - which it probably is - it might not hurt to write
>>> a rule for it.
LW>> You mean something like this? Works like a charm.
> Agreed. Hope to have my own mass-check results of this shortly (my
> version is slightly different from yours). Looks real useful so far.
> Bob Menschel
But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic
text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see.
It's highly lame (especially when messages should be in
plain text IMO), but it could appear in hams.
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
Re[2]: Rude spammers
Posted by Robert Menschel <Ro...@Menschel.net>.
Hello Loren,
Friday, December 10, 2004, 10:33:02 AM, you wrote:
>> > Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
>> > part, and this was the plain text part:
>> > "Get a capable html e-mailer"
>> ...
>> I've seen this mentioned a couple of times recently. If it's really
>> diagnostic of spamware - which it probably is - it might not hurt to write
>> a rule for it.
LW> You mean something like this? Works like a charm.
Agreed. Hope to have my own mass-check results of this shortly (my
version is slightly different from yours). Looks real useful so far.
Bob Menschel
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
> > Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
> > part, and this was the plain text part:
> >
> > "Get a capable html e-mailer"
> >
> > Do you sense a certain frustration with us? ;)
>
> I sense a great string to filter on.
>
> I've seen this mentioned a couple of times recently. If it's really
> diagnostic of spamware - which it probably is - it might not hurt to write
> a rule for it.
You mean something like this? Works like a charm.
rawbody LW_INCAPABLE /^Get a capable html e-mailer$/
score LW_INCAPABLE 1
describe LW_INCAPABLE Wants you to read HTML spam
Loren
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by Angus McIntyre <an...@pobox.com>.
> Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
> part, and this was the plain text part:
>
> "Get a capable html e-mailer"
>
> Do you sense a certain frustration with us? ;)
I sense a great string to filter on.
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times recently. If it's really
diagnostic of spamware - which it probably is - it might not hurt to write
a rule for it.
Of course the 'insult' may not be specifically targeted at spam-hostile
recipients (us), but simply at people who prefer to use plaintext mail
clients and regard HTML email as an invention of Satan. There's a large
overlap between the two groups, but they're not identical by any means.
Angus
Re: Rude spammers
Posted by John Hardin <jo...@aproposretail.com>.
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 07:13, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Got a couple spams today that slipped by SA with a plain text and HTML
> part, and this was the plain text part:
>
> "Get a capable html e-mailer"
>
> Do you sense a certain frustration with us? ;)
I have a specific kill rule for MUA snobbery like that.
--
John Hardin
Internal Systems Administrator (Seattle)
CRS Retail Systems, Inc.
3400 188th Street SW, Suite 185
Lynnwood, WA 98037
voice: (425) 672-1304
fax: (425) 672-0192
email: jhardin@crsretail.com
web: http://www.crsretail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you smash a computer to bits with a mallet, that appears to count
as encryption in the state of Nevada.
- CRYPTO-GRAM 12/2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------