Re: [SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination...?

2002-07-18 Thread Tom Grandgent
, because in spam it always occurs in combination with a > bunch of other even better signs of spam, while in nonspam it > occurs alone. > > C > > On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 12:55 PM, Tom Grandgent wrote: > > > That software costs $1000 minimum. However, there is

RE: [SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination...?

2002-07-18 Thread Tom Grandgent
t; It's probably because a lot of small-time, DYI spammers use that > software to perform bulk mailing. > > -Original Message- > From: Tom Grandgent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] SMTPD_

[SAtalk] SMTPD_IN_RCVD test is unfair discrimination...?

2002-07-18 Thread Tom Grandgent
Hi, I run Ipswitch Mail Server, a popular mail server on Win32, and recently one of my users had a legitimate email he sent flagged as spam by SpamAssassin running on the receiving server. What caught my attention was the line: SMTPD_IN_RCVD (2.1 points) Received via SMTPD32 server (SM