Re: [SAtalk] Missing subject_tag on spam
At 06:47 AM 2/11/2003, Ole Holm Nielsen wrote:
It appears that Justin is right: MIMEDefang apparently uses its own
rewriting in the script /etc/mail/mimedefang-filter and seemingly
ignores the /etc/mail/spamassassin/sa-mimedefang.cf config file
(or some of it ?).
MIMEDefang uses SpamAssassin to *check* mail only. Any parts of
sa-mimedefang.cf related to checking mail *do* get used. However, remember
that Sendmail and Mimedefang do not run as the individual user, so features
like auto-whitelisting will not work.
Using the return values from spam_assassin_check(), you can have MD add any
kind of markup you want, take different actions depending on which rules
are tripped or how high the score is, etc.
I found a MIMEDefang solution by Kelson Vibber in the message:
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2002-July/001650.html
where one uses a function like in this example:
action_change_header('Subject', $NewSubject);
For a simpler example you can look at the sample filters that come with
MD. Also, if you're basing a filter off of this post and intend to do
something special based on Razor, remember that Razor 2 trips a different
rule, RAZOR2_CHECK.
Also, the bit about breaking the report into separate lines is no longer
needed; someone pointed out a better way to handle it:
my $fixed_report = $report;
$fixed_report =~ s/\n+\z//g; # fixes for multiline header
$fixed_report =~ s/\n/\n\t/g; # to stop sendmail complaining
action_add_header("X-Spam-Report","$fixed_report");
In any case, further discussion of the filter should probably go over to
the MIMEDefang lists.
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
RE: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook
tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 15:44 skrev DEFFONTAINES Vincent: > > Does anyone have a good recommendation on how to bounce > > false-negatives to my bayesian classifier. I have an email > > address set to parse it, but from what I read, forwarding > > mail to it is not recommended. > > As an outlook (forced) user, I suggest you try : > Actions -> "Resend this message" With my smtp server it would never get out of the mail domain: The server would "know" the sender was local. And since I've told it not to scan mails from local users, it wouldn't get scanned again. I could forward it to my account outside the domain (in another country) that forwards back to me, but that wouldn't be "resending." it. Best, Tony -- Tony Earnshaw "Can anyone define 'modern enclitic mediocrity' in terms of the Euro for me?" - Billy the (Norwegian-Dutch) Cat, Feb '03 e-post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://www.billy.demon.nl --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
RE: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Justin Mason > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:34 AM > To: DEFFONTAINES Vincent > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook > > > > DEFFONTAINES Vincent said: > > > > Does anyone have a good recommendation on how to bounce > > > false-negatives to my bayesian classifier. I have an email > > > address set to parse it, but from what I read, forwarding > > > mail to it is not recommended. > > > > As an outlook (forced) user, I suggest you try : > > Actions -> "Resend this message" > > >>From my observations, it is about the same as Mutt's > bounce (at least, in > > outlook 2000) > > For some obscure reason, you have to really "open" the > email by double > > clicking the title to be able to use that feature. > > If you are viewing the email in the main outlook window, > you have no access > > to that menu. (don't ask me why). > > aha! that's how it's done ;) > > > My apologies to the list for polluting it with m$ tricks ;-o > > well, I was wondering how to do it anyway ;) > > --j. > Gotta change the From: to yourself (VIEW->From Field) in an Exchange enviroment, otherwise you won't have permission to send as the original sender. Other than that, it works pretty slick. Thanks for your help.. this makes life much easier in mananging my bayes db. Dallas --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] Negative scores by mistake?
Spamassassin 2.40 and 2.41 had serious score problems, that's why 2.43 had a fresh run of the GA done. Known issue, fixed in current versions. At 08:54 PM 2/10/2003 -0500, Ed Benckert wrote: I've SpamAssassin 2.41 installed, and a lot of the scores are negative, when they seem like they should be positive... for instance, a recent spam I got... SPAM: FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS (-0.9 points) From: contains numbers mixed in with letters SPAM: NO_REAL_NAME (-0.3 points) From: does not include a real name Both of those seem to me like they'd indicate spam, and not that it's a real email... I've had to fix a bunch of these seemingly backwards scores... is this a bug in spamassassin, or are these backwards scores intentional (and why...?) --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
[SAtalk] What's this?
I'm using SA 2.43 with guinevere. It receives a score of 6.5 but is never flagged as spam even when I set my threshold at 1. I don't see anything in it that matches any whitelists. What could I be missing? -- Received: from dms-mail04.netcenter.com by mymailsystem.net; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:18:22 -0500 Received: from dms-www1.netscape.com (dms-mailcaster-s06.netcenter.com) by dms-mail04.netcenter.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 0:20:44 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's Hot on Netscape in February? From: Netscape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:18:21 -0800 Reply-To: Netscape Unsubscribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="__BoundaryOfDocument__" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --__BoundaryOfDocument__ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Netscape News February Edition Dear Netscape Member, In this issue: - Can You Feel the Love? Look what old St. Valentine started -- and you can finish. Hearts, flowers, cupids and candy abound this month. Find love, give love and get love. Plan a special evening, tune up your pick-up lines, or practice some passionate poetry. - Tax Time is Near Junk mail and bills start to look attractive as W2s and 1099s fill your mailbox. Whether you plan to get organized and file early or procrastinate and file an extension, it's time to face the tax music. Discover the best tax saving strategies, download forms, and learn the latest about filing online. - Vince Gill Is The 'Next Big Thing' With 10 consecutive GRAMMY awards under his Stetson, country superstar Vince Gill keeps capturing hearts. Put your ear to a First Listen of his new single, "Someday," catch the exclusive [EMAIL PROTECTED] performance and interview, watch "The Next Big Thing" video and buy your concert tickets now. - Is It Real or Is It Reality? "Joe Millionaire" gets his girl. "The Bachelorette" gets her guy. Wannabes on "American Idol" get trashed by the acerbic Simon. How surreal can it get? Find all the latest on your favorite slices of TV life. - NS Tips: Seventh Heaven Out with the old and in with the new. What are you waiting for? Get the latest Netscape browser. Netscape 7.0 is available to download -- or order a FREE CD-ROM (with $2.99 shipping and handling). Make the switch. It's all free, and it's all in this issue of Netscape News. Read the full story now. http://dms-www01.netcenter.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/mcp?p=041UsY041VCd55EoKU012000WPyF9q Netscape --- Netscape respects your online time and Internet privacy. If you would prefer not to receive future e-mail messages from Netscape, please click on the below link, or simply reply to this e-mail and type "REMOVE" in the subject line. PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT CLICK ON THE BELOW LINK UNLESS YOU WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE. http://dms-www01.netcenter.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/mcp?p=041UtQ3UAD41VCd55EoKU012000WPyF9q Netscape News is a monthly publication with tips and information for Netscape Members. Please visit the following link for more information about Netscape help site. http://dms-www01.netcenter.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/mcp?p=041V3w041VCd55EoKU012000WPyF9q You are subscribed with:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --__BoundaryOfDocument__ Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Netscape News, February 2003 http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/topline.gif"; alt-"" width=600> http://dms-www01.netcenter.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/mcp?p=041Urd041VCd55EoKU012000WPyF9q";> http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/nn_toplogo.gif?nn0302Legacy=87762206"; width=117 align=left border=0> February 2003 http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/topbar.gif"; width=600 align=left alt=""> http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/click.gif"; width=184 border=0 alt="Table of Contents"> http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/spacer.gif"; width=184 border=0> http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/down_arrow.gif"; width=17 border=0> Love: Valentine's Day Central http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/spacer.gif"; width=184 Alt=""> http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0209/images/new/down_arrow.gif"; width=17 border=0> $$$: Uncle Sam Wants Your Money http://dms-www1.netscape.com/NCNews/0
RE: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook
> -Original Message- > From: Tony Earnshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Bounce spam to bayes classifier with Outlook > > > tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 15:44 skrev DEFFONTAINES Vincent: > > > > Does anyone have a good recommendation on how to bounce > > > false-negatives to my bayesian classifier. I have an email > > > address set to parse it, but from what I read, forwarding > > > mail to it is not recommended. > > > > As an outlook (forced) user, I suggest you try : > > Actions -> "Resend this message" > > With my smtp server it would never get out of the mail domain: The > server would "know" the sender was local. And since I've told > it not to > scan mails from local users, it wouldn't get scanned again. > > I could forward it to my account outside the domain (in > another country) > that forwards back to me, but that wouldn't be "resending." it. > that is why I handle mail differently for each domain. my MX records point to the same box, nmgi.com MX 5 mailgw.nmgi.com maigw.nmgi.com MX 5 mailgw.nmgi.com but my MTA considers *@nmgi.com as a smtproute, and considers *@mailgw.nmgi.com as local, so I can "Resend This Message" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and my Exchange server delivers it upstream to my gateway to be classified. Dallas --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] Feature suggestion - whitelist_from_to and whitelist_from_to_rcvd
At 12:07 PM 2/11/03 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: A lot of SA deployments are of the "sitewide" variety, where a single user_prefs gets applied uniformly to the email of a large number of users. Sometimes one user in the network wants a given email sender whitelisted, and others want them blacklisted or at least not whitelisted. So it might be useful to have whitelist_from_to, which requires both a matching from and too address to trigger the whitelist. The same logic is easily extended to whitelist_from_to_rcvd and blacklist_from_to. This doesn't fix the issues where a multi-recipient email get's whitelisted if any one person on the list is whitelisted, however it does seem to make some of the issues of maintaining whitelists and blacklists in a multi-user network a little easier. Anyone have a reason why this is a bad idea? Anyone else have any desire for this? Any flames for me being a blithering idiot and posting while I'm still drinking his AM coffee? :) This is mostly an off-the-cuff idea, but I'm wondering what others might think of it. It would appear that it wouldn't be too difficult to add, and might make a handy feature to add sometime round the 2.6x era. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk I just wanted to say that I think this could be very useful. We run SpamAssassin on our external mailserver where we don't actually have our user accounts. It would be nice to have the ability to do some individual settings rather than just site-wide settings. Linda --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] use_razor Depreceated?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 05:33:47PM -0600, David Dellanave wrote: > Has the use of use_razor, and use_dcc been depreceated? It's still listed in the >docs as supported, but causes failure when lint'ing the configuration rules. Which docs are you looking at? They're available in 2.50, but not in earlier versions. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Oh, go and eat my alarm clock." - Matt msg12387/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS
And I'm just going to ignore that stupid "you and the local council"-concept; because if you want to compare companies enforcing their no-spam policies by blocking spamfinanced websites with elected officials digging holes in public streets then there's something seriously wrong with you. Well, exactly - we all want to see *spammers* out digging holes in the streets. Easier to run them over that way. Or, play "Whack-A-Mole" for a while. :-) Sorry, just trying to interject some humour into the debate. ;) -Jonathan --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Rich Puhek wrote: > > > Malte S. Stretz wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 February 2003 18:51 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > > > >>[...] > >> When a domain is involved in spamming it's added to a list, and whenever > >>a local user is trying to access that website he gets a "hardcoded" > >>IP-address pointing to a server with a "This domain is not available due > >>to spamming"- page; and likewise with e-mails (bouncing with a "not > >>available due to spamming"-message). > >> > >> This would, of course, be used mainly by ISPs (or pretty much anyone > >>running a DNS-server); and there would be a lot of security/trust-stuff > >>involved but... ignoring that... what do you all think?= > > > > > > Here in Germany we've currenty got a BIG discussion about a similar topic: > > One state ordered some ISPs to block access to some Nazi sites [1]: > > | [...] The provider have been demanded to block their customers' access to > > | two right-wing extremists' web-sites being hosted in the USA. That does > > | not mean blocked access only, but blocked communication of any kind with > > | the people behind it as well - e-mails etc. shall be made impossible. > > | > > | At the moment, a pilot-project of a filter-system is being tested, which > > | will be used to block the access to questionable web-sites. Those websites > > | offer - according to German law - illegal content such as nazi-propaganda > > | and are proved to endanger children and the youth. But: the blocking > > | measurement also includes access to any web-site complying with these > > | premises, no matter where it is hosted. [...] > > > > Leaving out the legal aspects, this just won't work technically. You'll have > > the same problems as with RBLs: Loads of collateral damage. > > I've gotta agree w/ Malte for the most part. However, I see a larger problem in using DNS to do your work. If some product began blocking URL's based on domain names and DNS, and reached anywhere near the popularity of SpamAssassin, spammers will start to modify their tactics, and simply use IP's, and/or IP/port combo's. If you're going to devote time to a project meant to block requests for URL's in spam, especially if it's targetted at ISP's, a transparent content filtering box would be much more appropriately suited. There's a lot of expensive ones out there, but it is definately pooible to build your own. This would allow you to maintain a simple list of domains, as you suggested, as well as IP's, and IP/port combo's, or full URL's, or protocol analysis for anything, and even spamassassin-like heuristics run over all requests or results to determine whether they should recieve the page or not. It'd also allow you to tie in RADIUS info from the ISP, or custom IP databases, or whatever, to determine what customers have filtering applied to their traffic (instead of tainting dns for everyone using your dns server). Personally, I never want to be kept from accessing anything. But it does make loads of sence for some situations (libraries, schools, companies, christian/religious isp's, government offices, access for children, etc). Just somethign to think about before ya start. -- Josh I. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] How to create rule.
Wouldn't you be better off using a URI test rather than RAWBODY?
At 08:06 PM 2/10/2003 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
Although I'll warn you that such a rule is also likely to fire off on a
lot of nonspam mail, as this is common in a LOT of URLs using scripting,
the rule you desire would be something like this:
rawbody FALSEPOSPRONE_URL_WITH_EQUALS /http\:\/\/{.1,100}=/
score FALSEPOSPRONE_URL_WITH_EQUALS 10.0
This will look for http:// with an = character within 100 chars. Not
perfect as it will match stuff outside a URL that's just past it, but then
again, a perfect one will also false pos like crazy.
For example, every bugzilla bug on the sadev list will hit it with things
like this in them:
http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=678
and the headers of every message to this list contains:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=spamassassin-talk
Which won't match, but is an example of just how common equals signs are
in URLS.
At 10:52 AM 2/9/2003 -0600, Mike Watson wrote:
I've just started using SpamAssassin. I started because of one time of
spam that keeps eluding my Sendmail rules.
The spam usually contains only 2-3 lines. The constand is a URL with an
"=" sign in it. How and where could I build a rule to give this a
score of 10 or so?
Mike W
--
Registered Linux - 256979
NRA Life
ARS: W0TMW
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
___
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS
- Original Message - From: "Tony L. Svanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:51 PM Subject: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS > Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > > > Before I launch a website with this new and oh-so-great service I > > thought I'd check with you people first, just to see what it is that I'm > > missing with this oh-so-great idea (most likely that it either exists, > > or that someone tried it and got sued into next week). =) > > > > The idea is pretty simple, for a spammer (or the one paying him) to get > > his money he needs to have a way for his future customers to contact > > him, and most of the time that way is based on working > > DNS-servers/information (esp. these short anti-bayesian/spamfilter > > porn-spams I've been getting a lot of lately). > > > > When a domain is involved in spamming it's added to a list, and whenever > > a local user is trying to access that website he gets a "hardcoded" > > IP-address pointing to a server with a "This domain is not available due > > to spamming"- page; and likewise with e-mails (bouncing with a "not > > available due to spamming"-message). Thinking out-loud for a moment, on how to make this work for BIND, for instance, it would require your DNS server to create "fake" zones for those domains; which means an RBL host, somewhere, that allows XFERs to your server. It is probably a violation of a dozen of RFCs, though. :) Non-authorative name servers that collectively, cooperatively, decide to fake zone data, that has to be a violation of probably every rule in the book. :) And it would probably wreak havoc on inter-DNS server traffic, trying to sort out the conflicting mess. In my own BIND I could easily define a fake zone for, say, microsoft.com; and then people using my name servers would be affected. But large-scale ISPs doing this, I dunno; it does not seem wise to sabotage DNS on such a world-wide scale. Also, who would you accept zone data from? One "root" host? That is not a trivial question; since none of the cooperating name servers are authorative for the blacklisted domains, determining who to trust zone data from will be a real trick. Also, what happens if we need to delist a host? Instead of querying one RBL host that simply no longer has the IP address on its lists, now you will need widespread DNS propagation for updated zone files. A DNS proxy would work, though; but only if the user uses a cooperating name server, of course. But the problem is, there are more email servers than there are ISPs, of course. Take hotmail, for instance; likely millions of people have a hotmail account; but none of them uses hotmail as their ISP; read: uses their name servers to lookup domains. So, this would only work on the Internet provider level. And even then a user could always someone else's name servers. Hmm, the soup is getting colder. :( - Mark System Administrator Asarian-host.org --- "If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
Re: [SAtalk] A new(?) way to fight spam, blocking their DNS
tir, 2003-02-11 kl. 18:51 skrev Tony L. Svanstrom: > Before I launch a website with this new and oh-so-great service I thought I'd > check with you people first, just to see what it is that I'm missing with this > oh-so-great idea (most likely that it either exists, or that someone tried it > and got sued into next week). =) I would say that you don't know how DNS works nor understands its hierarchy. Suppose you and the local council suddenly got it into your heads that you didn't like a given person and went around digging holes in he streets for him to fall into? - Supposing you had the wrong man? - Supposing innocents fell into the holes? - Supposing the man went over your heads and complained to the county authorities? - Supposing someone on the local council changed their mind for some reason? Or were bought? And started filling in holes? - Supposing he chose a route somebody in the know had mapped out for him where there weren't any holes? - The suing bit you've already mentioned. I dare say that the Chinese would have made the idea work, if they could have done. They did try, after all. The North Korean version of forbidding all independent thought and action is the best solution, though. Best, Tony -- Tony Earnshaw "Can anyone define 'modern enclitic mediocrity' in terms of the Euro for me?" - Billy the (Norwegian-Dutch) Cat, Feb '03 e-post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www:http://www.billy.demon.nl --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
