> On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
>
>> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
>
> Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
> suddenly started getting a lot more spam and the headers indeed showed
> no SA checks. I to
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 3:24:20 AM [-0700], Simon Byrnand wrote:
>> On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
>>
>>> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
>>
>> Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
>> suddenly start
At 00:03 25/08/2003 -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
suddenly started getting a lot more spam and the heade
On Friday, August 22, 2003 @ 1:56:26 PM [-0700], Tim Buck wrote:
> So I've reverted back to SA 2.55. Anyone else see this behavior?
Tim...yes. I had an almost identical problem. Two or three users
suddenly started getting a lot more spam and the headers indeed showed
no SA checks. I too reverted
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:11:45PM -0700, Justin Mason is rumored to have said:
>
> Tim Buck writes:
> > I installed 2.60 rc1 (upgraded from 2.55) yesterday afternoon. Two
> > of my users today reported several very obvious spam messages got
> > through; none has on my account. I looked at the off
Tim Buck writes:
> I installed 2.60 rc1 (upgraded from 2.55) yesterday afternoon. Two
> of my users today reported several very obvious spam messages got
> through; none has on my account. I looked at the offending messages,
> and they had no SpamAssassin headers whatsoever; they, for whatever
> r
