On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:15:59AM -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:47 AM
> Subject: OT: RE: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
>
>
> > What I dont u
"Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages
> thru the rendering core of Mozilla and extract the text as the
> viewer would see. This would eliminate all the attempts to obscure
> the message. And any message with screwed up text after
- Original Message -
From: "Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: OT: RE: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages thru
the
> r
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Bill wrote:
> What I dont understand is why you guys dont just pass html messages thru
> the rendering core of Mozilla
Possibly because Mozilla isn't written in Perl?
Possibly because SA already has its own HTML renderer through which the
messages are passed?
> and extract t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Only 1.3 score by spamassassin
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:42:00AM +0300, Jan Elmqvist Nielsen wrote:
>
>> How did this mail only get 1.3 by spamassassin?
>>
>> I am using mailscanner 4.21-9 and spama
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:42:00AM +0300, Jan Elmqvist Nielsen wrote:
> How did this mail only get 1.3 by spamassassin?
>
> I am using mailscanner 4.21-9 and spamassassin 2.55
Are you letting MailScanner do DNSBL/RBL lookups or SpamAssasssin?
Here with spamc/spamd 2.55 via postfix the mail scor
