Re: [SAtalk] Letter

2003-11-24 Thread Matt Kettler
At 11:26 AM 11/24/2003, Jack Gostl wrote: No... it was something during the install. I remember the question about who to notify. That's not for email generation.. It's part of the tags added to spam messages. When SA tags a message as spam, it adds a bit to the body of the tagged spam, which bas

Re: [SAtalk] Letter

2003-11-24 Thread Jack Gostl
> >No... it was something during the install. I remember the question about > >who to notify. > > That's not for email generation.. It's part of the tags added to spam messages. > > When SA tags a message as spam, it adds a bit to the body of the tagged > spam, which basically says "if you have

Re: [SAtalk] Letter

2003-11-24 Thread Jack Gostl
No... it was something during the install. I remember the question about who to notify. I guess I could work out a procmail recipe. I got onto this track because of "false positives". 2.60 is pretty agressive about spam catching, and every now and then it nails a real message. If I could kick ba

Re: [SAtalk] Letter

2003-11-24 Thread Matt Kettler
At 01:16 PM 11/22/2003, Jack Gostl wrote: I thought I saw a reference to a letter that SA could automatically generate upon encountering spam. I've got 2.60 installed, could someone give me a pointer on how to create this letter. -- SA itself can't generate email, period. Lots of tools that use S

[SAtalk] Letter

2003-11-22 Thread Jack Gostl
I thought I saw a reference to a letter that SA could automatically generate upon encountering spam. I've got 2.60 installed, could someone give me a pointer on how to create this letter. -- Jack Gostl [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.ne