Re: [SAtalk] V-drug spam gets *0* hits on SA 2.55

2004-01-20 Thread AltGrendel
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 07:53, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Scott A Crosby wrote: > > > Read it and weep. :( > > This looks very similar to the one I posted about yesterday. See this mbox: > http://www.westnet.com/~chris/Spam0118 > I would try the antidrug.cf at "http://m

Re: [SAtalk] V-drug spam gets *0* hits on SA 2.55

2004-01-20 Thread Christopher X. Candreva
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Scott A Crosby wrote: > Read it and weep. :( This looks very similar to the one I posted about yesterday. See this mbox: http://www.westnet.com/~chris/Spam0118 == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816 W

Re: [SAtalk] V-drug spam gets *0* hits on SA 2.55

2004-01-20 Thread Ivar Snaaijer
Scott A Crosby wrote: Read it and weep. :( Next question, how was it sent? The Received headers look relatively legit, so was this sent from a trojaned AOL user? I have *got* to implement that fuzzy matching algorithm. Scott [.. spam ..] I also get them even with 2.61. I have added a trigge

[SAtalk] V-drug spam gets *0* hits on SA 2.55

2004-01-20 Thread Scott A Crosby
Read it and weep. :( Next question, how was it sent? The Received headers look relatively legit, so was this sent from a trojaned AOL user? I have *got* to implement that fuzzy matching algorithm. Scott --- Begin Message --- pronounce, How Vigras works. And you can better understand, what Vig