On Saturday 06 July 2002 19:27 CET Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 the voices made CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson write:
> > But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine
> > that this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all
> > day about MS
> > | FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS: This rule misfired on a
few emails that were> > | legitimately sent BCC.> >>
> Was this an outhouse bug? ( 'To:
' -- not a> > valid header per
RFC (2)822)> >> > I haven't checked the rule itself,
BTW.>> Yes. It was in the form 'To:
'.>I have registered this o
Wouldn't it be easier/better to change the original rule to accept OE's
undisclosed recipients format instead of adding a new rule? I'm too
sleepy right at the moment to try writing regexes.
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 17:16, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hu
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> We could add a negative
>
> header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
> describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
> score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
>
> Something like that?
Sounded g
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> We could add a negative
>
> header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
> describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
> score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
>
> Something like that?
>
Your d
We could add a negative
header OUTLOOK_EXPRESS /Microsoft Outlook Express/
describe OUTLOOK_EXPRESS Spammers use real software
score OUTLOOK_EXPRESS -3.0
Something like that?
C
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 12:07, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I know this was mentioned a wh
I know this was mentioned a while ago, but I couldn't find it in the
archives...
Bascially, the problem is that Outlook Express 6 uses a different format for
Undisclosed Recipients. Here's the top of a message that got flagged:
From: "Removed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Fw: men vs women
