Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > WTF is this?

Reply
Thread Tools

WTF is this?

 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2013
<a
href="http://www.dealadvisorswizards.info/320/35/79/229/389.12tt365678AAF1.html">
<!--
SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
-->

Found this code in an email message source.
Can anyone shed some light as to what the code is rerring to and how it
works?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2013
richard wrote:
> <a
> href="SPAM LINK REMOVE">
> <!--
> SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
> EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
> NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
> YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
> FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
> -->
>
> Found this code in an email message source.
> Can anyone shed some light as to what the code is rerring to and how it
> works?
>


SPAM

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2013
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:42:20 -0400, richard wrote:
> <a
> href="crap">
> <!--
> SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
> EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
> NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
> YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
> FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
> -->
>
> Found this code in an email message source.
> Can anyone shed some light as to what the code is rerring to and how it
> works?


It's not in a form of common data encoding and it's too uniform. It's likely
garbage since it's near a spam link. Even if it's custom encoded, spam data
won't be any good for anything.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2013
In message <13iq5t69t1pzw$.13331ltu0429w$(E-Mail Removed)>
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> <!--
> SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
> EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
> NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
> YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
> FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
> -->


>Found this code in an email message source. Can anyone shed some light
>as to what the code is rerring to


That is a comment block.

>and how it works?


It doesn't 'work'. It's just a comment block.


--
#27794 <Vellius> ... I wonder if the really nerdy Klingons learn how to
speak english
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2013
2013-04-02 12:56, Lewis wrote:

>> <!--
>> SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
>> EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
>> NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
>> YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
>> FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
>> -->

[...]
> That is a comment block.


It looks like a comment declaration ("comment block"), but it isn't.
Trying to validate a document with that foolishness causes an error
message like

invalid comment declaration: found name start character outside comment
but inside comment declaration.

> It doesn't 'work'. It's just a comment block.


There are no requirements on what browsers should do with a document
containing such a malformed construct. In practice, they may use broken
comment declaration parsing and really treat it as a comment declaration.

The question was nonsensical, but there's a lesson to be learned from
the answer: don't use a pair of hyphens "--" inside a comment declaration.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Streater
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Evan Platt <evan@*******************************.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:42:20 -0400, richard <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> ><a
> >href="http://www.dealadvisorswizards.info/320/35/79/229/389.12tt365678AAF1.ht
> >ml">
> > <!--
> >SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDB
> >ILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
> >EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUK
> >SMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
> >NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJ
> >AHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
> >YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELID
> >BBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
> >FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXL
> >IXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
> >-->
> >
> >Found this code in an email message source.
> >Can anyone shed some light as to what the code is rerring to and how it
> >works?

>
> Spam right? It's an attempt to get around Bayesian filters.


You can't get round bayesian filters this way. The above (assuming you
tokenise on the '--') will give a series of tokens with a count of 1 in
the tokens database. They won't be used when assessing the spamminess of
the mail.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
In message <kjeb4u$cf5$(E-Mail Removed)>
Jukka K. Korpela <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 2013-04-02 12:56, Lewis wrote:


>>> <!--
>>> SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF--TWSQRVTBLS--IGADWGUFHQ--PBDKBHRRBT--YWRRNJPJMD--CXJDBILVOT--PGUSSWDKQG--EPDXKSJAEW--
>>> EGUPLXYXUP--RMVOFQNKDE--QHWVIJQRLU--QRENIPMJPJ--YHVWYBNMOQ--TFAQEKCUDN--QVIUKSMYCD--IDMEALHPBV--IUEKNIVPFB--FXWPUJIIIK--
>>> NQPAUPOFHP--DRMHDARBRX--CYVYPTJXCT--LPLBRITGNB--XRVKBYMTAE--TEERFVLQTP--LHFWJAHFIV--IHPERSFHOF--LILRDRNOIK--HVROSDOBIX--
>>> YRHQXYJEIY--LUJXOMPDEA--PLWJCRNRUX--RVRYMQAYUJ--XIGJGUWXAD--BRQACSRPMP--PELIDBBEAV--PAEVLNSKNT--NOLEONAJFM--YVRMGUNHBP--
>>> FQRLOEYION--CFEPJTGJDN--WELQQRNHYP--WGIRSAXTIO--JMTOEGKKRN--YQTKHKFVRG--NRNXLIXJCG--XMUUDABNKS--DLKWYTHERC--KFVAGHIESN--
>>> -->

> [...]
>> That is a comment block.


> It looks like a comment declaration ("comment block"), but it isn't.
> Trying to validate a document with that foolishness causes an error
> message like


This is because there are double dashes '--' in the block. If you
eliminate a single - from it, it will validate, sort of. At least BBEdit
then sees it as a comment (though it will give an error).

I admit, I have no idea why this is. Removing anyother -- doesn't fix
it, but removing any group of characters AN the following/preceding --
fixes it also.

Very odd.

> The question was nonsensical, but there's a lesson to be learned from
> the answer: don't use a pair of hyphens "--" inside a comment declaration.


At least in HTML4/HTML5, the string "--" in comments is completely
forbidden.

--
Say, give it up, give it up, television's taking its toll That's enough,
that's enough, gimme the remote control I've been nice, I've been good,
please don't do this to me Turn it off, turn it off, I don't want to
have to see
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
2013-04-03 3:31, Lewis wrote:

>> It looks like a comment declaration ("comment block"), but it isn't.
>> Trying to validate a document with that foolishness causes an error
>> message like

>
> This is because there are double dashes '--' in the block.


Technically, no. It is not the second "--" that triggers a validator
error message but the letter after it, in the construct that starts with

<!--
SHSQGQGYVH--TKUAEFPQAF

> Very odd.


It's explained well at
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/wi...c/comment.html

>> The question was nonsensical, but there's a lesson to be learned from
>> the answer: don't use a pair of hyphens "--" inside a comment declaration.

>
> At least in HTML4/HTML5, the string "--" in comments is completely
> forbidden.


In HTML 4, that is formally true, but just because "comment" means
something else than you (or most people) think. The string "--" is not
allowed within a comment, but it is allowed within a comment
declaration, under certain rules. The following is syntactically correct
(though not advisable) in HTML 4:

<!-- Hello -- -- Hello-->

HTML5 simplifies things: it has just a "comment" concept, which
corresponds to a simplified form of SGML comment declaration, and indeed
forbids any "--" inside a comment.

So here's yet another reason why it is incorrect to say that any HTML
1.0 Strict document is valid HTML5.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lewis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
In message <kjgcj4$3l9$(E-Mail Removed)>
Jukka K. Korpela <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 2013-04-03 3:31, Lewis wrote:


>>> It looks like a comment declaration ("comment block"), but it isn't.
>>> Trying to validate a document with that foolishness causes an error
>>> message like

>>
>> This is because there are double dashes '--' in the block.


> Technically, no. It is not the second "--" that triggers a validator
> error message but the letter after it, in the construct that starts with


That is because the '--' is only allowed as part of the closing tag, '-->' when the > is not there, the error occurs.

>> At least in HTML4/HTML5, the string "--" in comments is completely
>> forbidden.


> In HTML 4, that is formally true, but just because "comment" means
> something else than you (or most people) think. The string "--" is not
> allowed within a comment, but it is allowed within a comment
> declaration, under certain rules. The following is syntactically correct
> (though not advisable) in HTML 4:


> <!-- Hello -- -- Hello-->


It throws errors here, but I did not check it agains the w3 validator.

I tested:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
</head>
<body>
<!-- -- Test -->
<h1>This is a header</h1>
</body>
</html>

And BBEdit not only errors, but it doesn't see the comment block as
closed, so the rest of the document shows up in syntax coloring as a
comment. It does display the file "correctly".

And throws the error:

"untitled text 5:15: Unexpected EOF; document ended in the middle of an
SGML Comment."

> HTML5 simplifies things: it has just a "comment" concept, which
> corresponds to a simplified form of SGML comment declaration, and indeed
> forbids any "--" inside a comment.


> So here's yet another reason why it is incorrect to say that any HTML
> 1.0 Strict document is valid HTML5.


HTML 1.0?

--
'Why is it all Mr Dibbler's films are set against the background of a
world gone mad?' said the dwarf. Soll's eyes narrowed. 'Because Mr
Dibbler,' he growled, 'is a very observant man.' --Moving Pictures
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2013
2013-04-03 19:13, Lewis ?rote:

> That is because the '--' is only allowed as part of the closing tag,
> '-->' when the > is not there, the error occurs.


Not correct. There is no tag involved; it's a comment declaration in
SGML, comment in XML. In SGML, '>' terminates it, and '--' is a comment
delimiter. In XML, '-->' is a comment terminator, but not a "closing tag".

>> <!-- Hello -- -- Hello-->

>
> It throws errors here, but I did not check it agains the w3
> validator.


In HTML 4.01, it is valid and contains two comments.

> I tested:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html lang="en"> <head>
> </head> <body> <!-- -- Test --> <h1>This is a header</h1> </body>
> </html>


That's something completely different. Here you have something that
starts like a comment declaration that contains first the comment
'-- --' and then 'Test', which makes it invalid.

>> So here's yet another reason why it is incorrect to say that any
>> HTML 1.0 Strict document is valid HTML5.

>
> HTML 1.0?


Sorry, HTML 4.01.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cant add file associations in Firefox 1.0 for winXP!?!??! wtf??? Idolator#556 Firefox 2 02-05-2005 11:37 PM
New to Aironet products, wtf can cause this? steeda Cisco 0 01-28-2005 07:04 AM
WTF?? Leroy Forrester Firefox 18 09-24-2004 06:59 AM
irda/rc5...wtf? =?Utf-8?B?YWxwaGFMb2JzdGVy?= Wireless Networking 0 08-01-2004 10:55 PM



Advertisments