"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" said:
> | BTW my position on this, FWIW, is to take the old IETF position: "be
> | conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive".
> Doesn't that kind of imply accepting all the spam and whatever other
> junk is thrown at you?
Not *that* liberal ;) It's
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:00:43PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
| BTW my position on this, FWIW, is to take the old IETF position: "be
| conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive".
Doesn't that kind of imply accepting all the spam and whatever other
junk is thrown at you?
It
"CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson" said:
> 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
> not following RFC standards but in the end the customer still gets
> legitimate email tagged as Spam
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
> not following RFC standards but in the end the customer still gets
about
RFCs.
---Ed.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Derrick 'dman' Hudson
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: satalk
> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS rule [was "Rule misfires&q
On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 10:05:20AM -0400, CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
| > > | 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
