Internet Explorer URL Display problem

[Julian Field]

At 12:48 11/12/2003, you wrote:
>Julian Field wrote:
>>At 20:52 10/12/2003, you wrote:
>>>Wouldn't this only mark the message as spam? Maybe I'm alone on this, but
>>>I think that this presents a far more serious threat than just spam. If
>>>someone opens the spam anyways and sees a message from their bank,
>>>requesting verification of online banking information, they might be
>>>tempted to follow the links AND complain to me that this important
>>>message
>>>from their bank was marked as spam.
>>>
>>>My thought is that this should fall under the same general area of the
>>>flowchart as the I-Frame exploits, if possible.
>
>I was thinking this but have added Julian's rules to my SA prefs for now
>anyway. "Owt's better than nowt!" springs to mind...

What I have done is set the score of the rule to 100, set my high scoring
threshold to 100, and set the high scoring spam actions to "delete". That
way the users never knew they were going to get it.

>>I don't want to do what SA already does very well, nor do I want to write
>>code that is part of the arms race, I've probably done too much of that
>>already. So I would prefer SA to do this. Maybe it is time to "plug" MCP
>>rather more, and do more testing of it.
>>
>>For docs on MCP, see
>>www.sng.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailscanner/install/mcp
>
>I will have a look at this - Julian, have you got patches for SA 2.61
>yet? (The page says to ask for patches for new versions of SA!! ;-)

Not yet, but will do that this afternoon (nearly end of term here so
actually have my head above water for once!).

>(Also, btw, there are still some references to TCP rather than MCP in
>that page.)

Will take a look.
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654