Re: [SAtalk] rule suggestion,multiple to and cc lines

2002-03-04 Thread Craig Hughes
Already there. Check the *SUSP* rules. C On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 09:45, Tal Kelrich wrote: > I was wondering if filtering on this is a good idea, and as my subject > line is illegible, I'll add a real-life sample > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ><[

[SAtalk] rule suggestion,multiple to and cc lines

2002-03-04 Thread Tal Kelrich
I was wondering if filtering on this is a good idea, and as my subject line is illegible, I'll add a real-life sample To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Tal Kelrich PGP Fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5

RE: [SAtalk] rule suggestion

2002-02-12 Thread Michael Geier
but that would be an argument for personal whitelist (or even auto-whitelist once it has been improved). -Original Message- From: rODbegbie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:21 AM To: Michael Geier; SpamAssassin List Subject: Re: [SAtalk] rule suggestion

Re: [SAtalk] rule suggestion

2002-02-12 Thread rODbegbie
ssassin List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:57 AM Subject: [SAtalk] rule suggestion > The attached email slipped under the threshold. > > However, something caught my eye. > Generally, the from: domain and the reply-to: domain don't match on spam.

[SAtalk] rule suggestion

2002-02-12 Thread Michael Geier
The attached email slipped under the threshold. However, something caught my eye. Generally, the from: domain and the reply-to: domain don't match on spam. Maybe we could compare against that? -Original Headers- Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from emailpdc.CLIENTMAIL ([207.2