[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:26 AM
To: Mike Kuentz
Cc: 'Larry Gilson'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
>
> IMHO, I think finding out if a message is legit carries just as much
> weight
> as findin
>
> IMHO, I think finding out if a message is legit carries just as much
> weight
> as finding out if it is crap. If I can combine x amount of tests to
> verify
> that it's legitimately from an Exchange server, it would be worth it from
> the perspective that I could maybe side line those message
--
From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame,
--
From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame,
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 09:39, Mike Kuentz (2) wrote:
> We do site wide here, so I've had to make adjustments, too. Not ready to do
> bayes, yet. Not sure how well it would work for a site wide environment.
> We do consulting, so most of our FPs used to come from "Dear Sir, look at my
> resume", fl
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame, I was
> hoping I was on to something, if nothing other than
> solidifying the MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE rule. Oh well, back to
> the drawing board!
>
> Mike
I am curious, does MSGID_GO
#x27;[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re[2]: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
WARNING: Unsanitized content follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, September 5, 2003, 2:37:39 PM, someone posted:
ST> Chris Santerre wrote:
>>We tend to be very vague on custom nega
er 05, 2003 8:55 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
The fix is post SP2 which means it was rolled into SP3. A vast majority of
the Exchange servers should be at least at that service pack if not SP4
which was released at the end of
Robert Menschel writes:
>* What specific business are your people in? Much of our mail deals with
>lumber and building materials. ...
Ssh! This is a public forum! Don't mention the lumber cartel!!
http://lumbercartel.freeyellow.com/
;)
--j.
---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, September 5, 2003, 2:37:39 PM, someone posted:
ST> Chris Santerre wrote:
>>We tend to be very vague on custom negative rules. Spammers are
>>listening on this list. Most of it happens off list. really not much
>>else we can do about it.
ST
Hey Mike,
The fix is post SP2 which means it was rolled into SP3. A vast majority of
the Exchange servers should be at least at that service pack if not SP4
which was released at the end of 2000.
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2)
> There is always a lot of good ta
Chris Santerre wrote:
We tend to be very vague on custom negative rules. Spammers are listening on
this list. Most of it happens off list. really not much else we can do about
it.
So to speak... look @your ham... analyse... and build *your* custom
negative scorers :-)
s.
PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
>
>
> There is always a lot of good talk here about different
> methods for us to
> rack up points on SPAM, but I usually don't see much about
> identifying HAM
> and applying negative points. I don'
There is always a lot of good talk here about different methods for us to
rack up points on SPAM, but I usually don't see much about identifying HAM
and applying negative points. I don't know if any one is interested, but
Exchange 5.5 has a quirk in it where when you specify it to send a message
a
14 matches
Mail list logo
