Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-22 Thread Matthew Cline
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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-22 Thread Danita Zanre
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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Bart Schaefer
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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Matthew Cline
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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Pete Hanson
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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Danita Zanre
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

2002-06-21 Thread Rose, Bobby
: 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

Re: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Bart Schaefer
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

RE: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Danita Zanre
>>> "Rose, Bobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/21/2002 6:19:09 PM >>> >Can you include the header that produced this also? Yes, certainly - here's the entire message since it's not terribly long: >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jun 21 12:09:53 2002 X-Mail-Format-Warning: Bad RFC2822 header formatting in M

RE: [SAtalk] X- references in headers

2002-06-21 Thread Rose, Bobby
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 it is fant