On 3/1/02 8:20 PM, "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | and even if it did, it would still be impossible to solve
> | every problem (Goedel's incompleteness theorem anyone?)
>
> Wrong theorem, IMO. You can't solve any problems in a perfect world
> because if a problem existed, the world wouldn
dman writes:
>Wrong theorem, IMO. You can't solve any problems in a perfect world
>because if a problem existed, the world wouldn't be perfect. In a
>perfect world, no problems exist, which is why they can't be sovled :-).
That sounds like a problem to me! ;-)
--Bill.
--
William R Ward
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 07:09:33PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
| On 3/1/02 5:26 PM, "William R Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > In a perfect world, whitelist shouldn't be necessary.
Of course. In a perfect world there would be no spam either (which is
the only reason a white or black list e
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 06:27:05PM -0800, William R Ward wrote:
| Am I correct in assuming that unless I use the -r option to complain
| about spam, spamassassin does not attempt to notify the sender's ISP
| or such? It wasn't clear from the documentation.
It doesn't notify the sender's ISP on
William R Ward wrote:
>In a perfect world, whitelist shouldn't be necessary.
>
In a perfect world, we shouldn't be sitting here discussing ways to
filter spam from our inboxes. But here we are.
--
http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
> > In a perfect world, whitelist shouldn't be necessary.
>
> I disagree. Looking at the message you forwarded, there is no way to
> distinguish it from spam (even as a human). If I received that mail and it
> were not tagged as spam, I would consider that a false-negative.
I agree with Craig.
On 3/1/02 5:26 PM, "William R Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sidney Markowitz writes:
>> On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 16:37, William R Ward wrote:
> There's a lot of legitimate e-mail about money in the world... I think
> that perhaps that criteria should be refined and/or deemphasized.
It's not em
On 3/1/02 4:37 PM, "William R Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sidney Markowitz writes:
>> On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 14:34, William R Ward wrote:
>>> This is *not* spam...
>>
>> If I were to receive that Rich Dad email unsolicited it would clearly be
>> spam. The only way Spamassassin could know t
Sidney Markowitz writes:
>On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 17:52, William R Ward wrote:
>> Hmm, looks like I was wrong. It does apparently have spammish
>> headers. I don't know anything about osirusoft.com, but spamassassin
>> says it's a spammer
>
>Actually I would say that I was wrong. Spamassassin did
dman writes:
>On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 05:52:10PM -0800, William R Ward wrote:
>| If osirusoft.com is a spam relay, then what should I say to the Rich
>| Dad people to convince them to not use it?
>
>osirusoft (if you check out their web site) is a site that provides
>DNS-based blacklisting of site
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 05:52:10PM -0800, William R Ward wrote:
| William R Ward writes:
| >I'm not asking for a global whitelist entry. I'm saying that the
| >e-mail didn't have any spammish headers, and the body of the
| >message seems like an innocuous announcement to me.
| >
| >I think the pr
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 17:52, William R Ward wrote:
> Hmm, looks like I was wrong. It does apparently have spammish
> headers. I don't know anything about osirusoft.com, but spamassassin
> says it's a spammer
Actually I would say that I was wrong. Spamassassin did not think that
the body was spa
William R Ward writes:
>I'm not asking for a global whitelist entry. I'm saying that the
>e-mail didn't have any spammish headers, and the body of the
>message seems like an innocuous announcement to me.
>
>I think the problem might be because "cash" and "rich" are in the
>body. That in itself d
Sidney Markowitz writes:
>On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 16:37, William R Ward wrote:
>> >and therefore not spam to you is for you to put it in your whitelist.
>>
>> I did.
>
>And it was still marked spam? That sounds like a bug and you should post
>the full message with headers including the spam report
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 16:37, William R Ward wrote:
> >and therefore not spam to you is for you to put it in your whitelist.
>
> I did.
And it was still marked spam? That sounds like a bug and you should post
the full message with headers including the spam report if you want it
to be possible to
Sidney Markowitz writes:
>On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 14:34, William R Ward wrote:
>> This is *not* spam...
>
>If I were to receive that Rich Dad email unsolicited it would clearly be
>spam. The only way Spamassassin could know that it is not unsolicited
>and therefore not spam to you is for you to put
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 14:34, William R Ward wrote:
> This is *not* spam...
If I were to receive that Rich Dad email unsolicited it would clearly be
spam. The only way Spamassassin could know that it is not unsolicited
and therefore not spam to you is for you to put it in your whitelist.
If [EMAI
This is *not* spam...
--- Begin Message ---
We have the opportunity to share our Cashflow for Kids testimonials with
a major TV Network! We are asking for help from our Rich Dad friends.
Please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include your kid's stories
and how they feel about the Cashflow
18 matches
Mail list logo
