Re: [SAtalk] HTML only messages

2003-01-20 Thread Kai Schaetzl
Michael Moncur wrote on Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:07:59 -0700: > a bunch of HTML newsletters > and a webmail client or two. > Expedia ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) does it as well for booking confirmations :-( Nevertheless I bumped it up to 2.0 and this scored the only false positive within weeks: Expedia. So,

RE: [SAtalk] HTML only messages

2003-01-20 Thread Andrew Joakimsen
Isnt it already in place to lower outlook scores? Why not just increase the score for HTML mails and increase the amount deducted for outlook? -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]En nombre de Bob Proulx Enviado el: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:12 PM Para: [EMAI

[SAtalk] X-Mailer: PowerMail v2306297 legitamte or not?

2003-01-20 Thread Mike Loiterman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Would this header ever show up in a legitamte mail? X-Mailer: PowerMail v2306297 - --- Randomly Generated Quote: IMPIETY, n. Your irreverence toward my deity. -- Ambrose Bierce Mike L

[SAtalk] Spam-Report for non-spam

2003-01-20 Thread Jeffrey Culverhouse
Hey, I put in the small change to PerMsgStatus.pm to add the X-Spam-Report for all email, not just spam, so that if I find a false-negative, it is easier to see what + and - points it *did* get (and not just the RULE names it matched)... It is pretty trivial, but I wondered if anyone else has yet

Re: [SAtalk] whitelist from not working

2003-01-20 Thread Matt Kettler
First, don't ever edit 60_whitelist.cf if you can avoid it, add your own stuff to local.cf instead. 60_whitelist.cf, and ever other file in /usr/share/spamassassin/ will be obliterated without warning when you upgrade SA. Those files are not intended to be edited for general customization. You

Re: [SAtalk] sa-learn question

2003-01-20 Thread Bob Apthorpe
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:43:20 -0500 Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 08:27:03AM -0600, Bob Apthorpe wrote: > > They're only in 2.50; 2.50 should be released in a week or two. > > FYI: The "official" answer is sometime Q1 2003. :) We're still doing > bug fixes a