jm> wierd. for 3 months, nobody but spammers sent HTML-only mail, now
jm> everyone's doing it :( Better mod the score downwards...
cewatts> Is the really high HTML-only score a GA-created one? WOW, is
cewatts> that high.
jm> yeah, goes to show how effective it was, until all these other
jm> m
- Original Message -
From: "Charlie Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
>
> > I think that 4.33 might be a little aggressive for HTML-only mail.
> > Especially with a default threshhold of 5.
>
> > Finally, I see why this matches the 'Forged eudoramail.c
Charlie Watts said:
> Is the false eudoramail.com hit because of an editing mistake? It looks
> like the forged eudoramail and forged excite checks are almost identical.
> I wonder if there was a copy/paste that didn't get edited ...
> Justin/Craig?
mea culpa ;)
> Is the really high HTML-only
Daniel Rogers said:
> I've attached the message below. I think that 4.33 might be a little
> aggressive for HTML-only mail. Especially with a default threshhold of 5.
> Also, I know a lot of people aren't clued enough to realize that the 'full
> name' box is supposed to be their full name and
Looks like Justin just checked that in right before release... might well be buggy -- certainly would have thought the check for from excite.com should be something else for eudoramail...
The score for HTML only is GA-evolved. My GA actually scores it even higher than justin's against the s
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> I think that 4.33 might be a little aggressive for HTML-only mail.
> Especially with a default threshhold of 5.
> Finally, I see why this matches the 'Forged eudoramail.com' test, but
> should it? It seems like a perfectly valid set of excite.com head
