On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 12:14:54PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> | >Subject: ??
> ^^
> It's not a valid message. No RFC allows 8bit characters in message
> headers. Recent postfix snapshots have a strict_7bit_headers option
> to
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:27:40AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| Hi Derrick,
|
| At 06/10/2002 13:04, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| >On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| >| Not true. We're starting to see spam mail with huge attachments.
| >
| >What sort of attachments?
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> | All these spams carry between 1 and 12 GIF or JPEG images (photos of
> | their products, or photos of paper catalog pages), ranging in size
> | from 20k to 300k each; the message
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:20:17PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
|
| > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:51:07AM -0800, Pete Hanson wrote:
| > | Not true. We're starting to see spam mail with huge attachments.
| >
| > What sort of attachments? What ar
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:17:05PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 04:02:24PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > spamd would be the one giving the output, but it doesn't _have_ to
| > output the whole message, just the headers that have changed. spamc
| > wouldn't cha
