In your message regarding SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and UUencoded
pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17 +, Mike Bostock said
that ...
>MB- Received false negative due to its attachment.
I meant false positive - sorry
>MB-
>MB- Header of attachment was
>MB-
>MB- &qu
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox
and UUencoded .pdf file dated Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:25 +, Mike
Bostock said that ...
>MB- In your message regarding [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and
>MB- UUencoded .pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17
In your message regarding [SAtalk] SA 2.63, Backhair, Chickenpox and
UUencoded .pdf file dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:07:17 +, Mike
Bostock said that ...
>MB- Received false negative due to its attachment.
I posted a correction to this from home but it doesn't seem to have
appeared on
Received false negative due to its attachment.
Header of attachment was
"begin 666 docname-12345.pdf"
The contents of the email which was from an insurance company
together with this attachment produced the following output.
0.2 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
0.6 J
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] You have a secret admirer dated Thu, 31
Oct 2002 18:20:22 +0100 (CET), Jan Korger said that ...
>JK-
>JK- As suggested before, I think it's always a good idea to rewrite email
>JK- addresses on the web not to look like [EMAIL PROTECTED], but, of course, t
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] Is Razor making me think that I was
compromised? dated Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:06:00 -0500 (CDT),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said that ...
>l- On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Frank Pineau wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:03:50 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> >
> > >This is a bad choic
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] "Good" email clients dated
Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:03:24 -0400, Theo Van Dinter said that ...
>TVD-
>TVD- You're talking about rules with negative scores, thereby likely to make a
>TVD- message "not spam". A "positive score" or "positive rule" makes somethi
Justin
I notice that some clients have a positive score since they are
unlikely to be used by spammers.
How do I go about recommending mine (see the header) to have a
default positive score as I am pretty sure spammers won't use it and
the developer would probably roast any spammer over a very s
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] Spam host? dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002
18:42:36 +0100, Justin Mason said that ...
>JM- True ratware tests are aimed at tools used *only* by spammers -- ie. the
>JM- tools will disguise addresses, insert forged Received lines, etc.
>JM- This isn't one of t
In your message regarding Re: [SAtalk] Spam host? dated Mon, 23 Sep
2002 10:44:23 -0400, Vivek Khera said that ...
>
>VK- Please try to remember that mass-mailing does not equal SPAM.
1. Targeted bulk email obviously using a database that identifies me
as a dentist.
2. The targets are US de
Received: from tracking2 (tracking2.roving.com [10.20.40.142])
by ccm01.roving.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4696633ED4
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Roving Constant Contact
5.0.Patch121c.P121C_SchedEnhancement_09_05_02
(http://www.constant
In your message regarding RE: [SAtalk] Newbie question - script for resubmit
and add to whitelist dated Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:57:33 -0500, Smart, Dan said
that ...
>SD- I copy all message headers as a log to a MBOX mailbox using the Procmail
>SD- :0chi: command. The 'c' command copies rather tha
Hi
I have only started to use Spamassassin in the the last few days and am
considerably impressed even though I have had several false positives and only
one slip through.
I performed the install as per the defaults
Running spamd with individual procmailrc as per the example ie spam gets sent
t
13 matches
Mail list logo
