Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-18 22:03:39 -0500]:
> Whoa. GPG/PGP signitures used to carry a -50 or so! What's the line of
> thinking here? I've never once recieved a signed piece of spam that was
> signed. OTOH, I've recieved lots of real signed mail. Has this rule been
> explo
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:36:25PM -0600, Jeremy Turner wrote:
> According to http://spamassassin.org/tests.html, PGP_SIGNATURE and
> PGP_SIGNATURE_2 are -.5 and -.7 which would give them extra breathing room
> in case they turn up positive otherwise.
Whoa. GPG/PGP signitures used to carry a -50
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 19:46, Philip Mak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:11:11PM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > Is there a reason that companies who want to send legit mail that
> > looks spammy can't just PGP/GPG sign it? This way, a user can be
> > sure of the source.
>
> Most people prob
