On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:00:41PM -0400 or thereabouts, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:55:08AM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> > I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
> > crossed But, the following message seems to have met the required value
> >
003 9:01 AM
To: John Schneider
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] required value met, but spam not flagged
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:55:08AM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
> crossed But, the following message se
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:55:08AM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
> crossed But, the following message seems to have met the required value
> for spam, but was not flagged:
>
> Received: from supply.erhouse.com ([211.217.250.70]
The 8.0 value you're seeing for the score is a rounded value, and is
probably slightly below 8.
John Schneider wrote:
I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
crossed But, the following message seems to have met the required value for spam, but was not flagged:
[s
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:55:08AM -0700, John Schneider wrote:
> I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
> crossed But, the following message seems to have met the required value
> for spam, but was not flagged:
>
> X-Spam-Level: ***
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=8.0
I have been working too much lately, so my eyes might be a little
crossed But, the following message seems to have met the required value
for spam, but was not flagged:
Received: from supply.erhouse.com ([211.217.250.70])
by server.com (8.12.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h91FMGUx066014
for <[EMAIL
