On Saturday 22 June 2002 11:58 am, Danita Zanre wrote:
> I guess the 2.4 points for giving our customers a way to actually
> remove themselves from our LEGITIMATE mailing list really puts us over
> the top .
Yes. The unsubscribe notice on Yahoo! Groups mailing lists messages gives an
*4* point
Yeah,
I just did a test run from my shopping cart for a message we need to
send out to our customers - got a 7 out of 5 rating .
SPAM: Content analysis details: (7 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: X_EM2.31PRESENT (1.3 points) Found a X-EM-Version header
SPAM: X_EM_REGISTRATION (1.2 points) Found a
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Pete Hanson wrote:
> A nice argument for people doing legitimate business on the web to start
> banding together and trying to do something about spam. These bottom
> feeders aren't helping legitimate business one bit, and may in fact be
> doing harm.
Actually there are som
On Friday 21 June 2002 06:08 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Here's an article that explains about "appending," a technique that seems
> appealing to the naive marketer but often ends up turning them into an
> "unintentional" spammer:
>
> http://www.clickz.com/em_mkt/opt/article.php/1367711
>Fr
At 06/21/2002 17:49, Danita Zanre wrote:
>Unfortunately, we also get complaints from customers saying "I
>purchased such-and-such and was told that I would receive information
>about upgrades - I see there's an upgrade and I didn't hear from you" -
>and we check and they have unsubscribed, or the
Bart, this is very useful, thanks.
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1640093
>Spammers give everyone a bad name.
Isn't that the truth - we occasionally get people who complain about
getting "too much email from us" We send out a mass mailing to our
customers at most about
: Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Danita Zanre wrote:
> SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.7 hits, 5 required)
> SPAM: X_SMTPEXP_VERSION (3.2 points) Found a X-SMTPExp-Version
header
> SPAM: X_EM2.31PRESENT (1.3 points) Found a X-EM-Version head
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Danita Zanre wrote:
> SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.7 hits, 5 required)
> SPAM: X_SMTPEXP_VERSION (3.2 points) Found a X-SMTPExp-Version header
> SPAM: X_EM2.31PRESENT (1.3 points) Found a X-EM-Version header
> SPAM: X_EM_REGISTRATION (1.2 points) Found a X-EM-R
= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Danita Zanre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] X- references in headers
I've installed SpamAssassin for our GroupWise system, and it is
fantastic. Thus far out of
Can you include the header that produced this also?
-Original Message-
From: Danita Zanre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] X- references in headers
I've installed SpamAssassin for our GroupWise system, and
I've installed SpamAssassin for our GroupWise system, and it is
fantastic. Thus far out of 487 messages that have come in since
installation, 180 have been classified as Spam, and except for 2 cases
they really WERE Spam. One does not concern me - another mail server
was not configured correctly
11 matches
Mail list logo
