Re: [SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread landy
thanks all for the reply. iguess i learned something today --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PRO

Re: [SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread Martin Schroeder
On 2003-10-06 15:15:42 -0400, Landy wrote: > this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which is the default > any idea why the status is no? RTFA 4.97 is reported as 5.0, but lower than 5.0 Best regards Martin -- Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-S

Re: [SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread Matt Kettler
At 03:15 PM 10/6/2003, Landy wrote: pam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=5.0 tests=NIGERIAN_BODY1,NIGERIAN_BODY2, NIGERIAN_BODY3,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=2.60 this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which is the default any idea why the status is no? Round n

RE: [SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread Steven Manross
onday, October 06, 2003 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] spam status no pam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=5.0 tests=NIGERIAN_BODY1,NIGERIAN_BODY2, NIGERIAN_BODY3,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=2.60 this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which i

Re: [SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread Evan Platt
--On Monday, October 06, 2003 3:15 PM -0400 Landy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Spam-Level: > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=5.0 > tests=NIGERIAN_BODY1,NIGERIAN_BODY2, > NIGERIAN_BODY3,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=2.60 > > > this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which

[SAtalk] spam status no

2003-10-06 Thread Landy
pam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=5.0 required=5.0 tests=NIGERIAN_BODY1,NIGERIAN_BODY2, NIGERIAN_BODY3,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=2.60 this email has a no but it scored 5.0 which is the default any idea why the status is no? ---