At 03:27 PM 12/27/2003, you wrote:
Last month I offered some header rules for possible inclusion in a future
distribution. Those that passed muster have been formally submitted via
bugzilla.
I've now completed review of my "body phrase" rule set, and feel they're
ready for similar review.
Please lo
At 09:55 AM 12/9/2003, you wrote:
--On Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:33 PM -0500 "Thomas Shoaf (PromoStep)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am looking more of a web-based utility that our staff can use internally
> where most of our staff does not have access to the server, much less
> command-line
At 09:10 AM 12/3/2003, you wrote:
I'm setting up per user bayesian databases but as i've mentioned in
other posts, many of the people using the system recieve low volumes of
spam... 4-10 a day maybe. Accordingly it would take them 1-2 months for
the database to kick in.
Does anybody have a bayesian
At 10:51 AM 8/20/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Ooh... I like the "typo" solution. Keep in mind, of course, that it's
possible that the only way to get them to realize they've made a mistake is
to *show them* the contents of .dev.null. (Especially if you've set up your
filtering criteria such that they
VD_BUS_HOURS The CURRENT time is inside of business
hours
** Append to 50_scores.cf or local.cf (I'm an ISP, and prefer
false-negatives over false-positives within reason)
score RECVD_BUS_HOURS -0.33
# score RECVD_OUTSIDE_BUS_HOURS 0.33
--Ernest
At 09:36 AM 8/5/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> --
Thanks for assuming that I'm a more ept Perl coder than other readers ;)
Clarification: "[some] other readers" :)
--Ernest
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Foru
At 12:40 AM 8/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
my $timeString = sprintf("%02d%02d", $hour, $min);
This is some really great work, by the way. :)
Thanks and thanks :) Hope it comes in useful.
--Ernest
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-
I wrote a quick eval function that work as a proof-of-concept only. It
doesn't look at the headers at all... it uses the current system time and
*assumes* that the email is being scanned within a few minutes of being
received by the local server. I am aware that this is a weak assumption
in many
whitelists
a sender and another customer blacklists the same sender, and the same
email hits both rules. Also, for reasons that I won't go into, it is
impossible to do this on the POP/IMAP server.
Thanks,
--Ernest W. Lessenger
OACYS Techn
At 03:14 PM 6/27/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> I'd like to appeal to the SA collective to change the name of the
> PENIS_ENLARGE tests to something a little more innocuous. Apparently
Your company could always ask for a refund...
I think Rick has a valid request... I run the mail server at an ISP, and
At 03:27 PM 6/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
This list is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So Why is the reply-to set to this
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, it looks to me like the MUA is setting the Reply-To header, not
the list processor. I base this on the fact that your messages have y
11 matches
Mail list logo
