You'd need some clever rules...

As an example, the word "stock" is perfectly valid in emails, but if you
found it in an attached image you'd be pretty sure it was spam.

So you'd need two sets of rules anyhow.

It looks like SA 3.2 will let us do that in a sane manner.

Phil
--
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK  

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Fabien GARZIANO [mailto:fabien.garziano@[...].com] 
>  Sent: 02 October 2006 16:11
>  To: users@[...].org
>  Subject: RE: Stock spam in images
>  
>   
>  Too bad, cause I agree with Giampaolo, it would be great. 
>  What about making a plugin including OCR components but 
>  instead of using inner dictionnary, passing it back to 
>  spamassassin through the MTA... Yeah, I know, the load will 
>  increase ... But that would be nice ?
>  
>  ...
>  
>  ... Ok,I go back to sleep ....
>  
>  -----Message d'origine-----
>  De : Randal, Phil [mailto:prandal@[...].uk] 
>  Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2006 16:19
>  Ã? : users@[...].org
>  Objet : RE: Stock spam in images
>  
>  Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
>  
>  > And, by the way, it seems to work!
>  > 
>  > Actually, the only limit I see is the own-made FuzzyOcr.words (and, 
>  > maybe, the fact that script text may probably get undetected). 
>  > Wouldn't it be better to inject the detected text back to SA? There 
>  > should be enough variants of spam worlds to let SA fuzzily 
>  catch the 
>  > ones from images.
>  > 
>  > Am I wrong?
>  
>  I think so.  Some of the words would be perfectly legitimate 
>  in the text of emails but rarely found in attached legitimate images.
>  
>  Quite apart from the fact that Spamassassin isn't designed 
>  for "reinjection".
>  
>  Cheers,
>  
>  Phil
>  --
>  Phil Randal
>  Network Engineer
>  Herefordshire Council
>  Hereford, UK
>