At 06:27 PM 12/14/2004, Nix wrote:
dig doesn't use the local nameserver unless you're looking up a name
there: it queries remote nameservers directly.
No it does not. By default, dig uses the nameservers in resolv.conf. Check
your dig output sometime.
Performed on a box where resolv.conf points
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:02:42 +0100
"Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a recent package of Spamassassin for Debian STABLE
> (Woody) please. Either 2.64 or 3.x ?
>
> The apt-get.org has no one.
>
> Where could I find ?
>
> [This is a crosspos
- Original Message Follows -
From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: Re: consensus on SPF
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:42:38 -0800
> From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Jonathan Nichols wrote:
---snip---
> Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or
> reject ma
Hi,
http://www.backports.org/package.php?search=spamassassin
Regards,
Chris Thielen
Rakotomandimby (R12y) Mihamina wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for a recent package of Spamassassin for Debian STABLE
(Woody) please. Either 2.64 or 3.x ?
The apt-get.org has no one.
Where could I find ?
[This is a cross
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler uttered the following:
> At 11:47 AM 12/14/2004, Jon Dossey wrote:
>>A lot of people are having problems resolving using the loopback address
>>(127.0.0.1), try using an IP address that is bound to one of your NIC's.
>
> That's odd.. I myself have never done it an
Hello,
I'm looking for a recent package of Spamassassin for Debian STABLE
(Woody) please. Either 2.64 or 3.x ?
The apt-get.org has no one.
Where could I find ?
[This is a crosspost to SA and Debian list so please set the
"Reply-to":]
--
ASPO Infogérance http://aspo.rktmb.org/activites/in
jdow wrote:
> Even more to the point SPF is NOT a reason to accept or reject mail.
> All it does is verify the domain from which it originated. That is a
> tool for SCORING spam not for outright elimination of messages that
> have bad SPF records and accepting those that have good SPF records.
> It
From: "Ed Kasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 12:46 PM Tuesday, 12/14/2004, jdow wrote -=>
> >From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no
longer
> > > running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
> >
As Matt Kettler replied to me when I asked about it on the 12th:
8<---
In SA 3.0.x you can.. From the man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf manpage:
_SCORE(PAD)_ message score, if PAD is included and is either spaces
or
zeroes, then pad scores with that many spaces or zeroes
At 12:46 PM Tuesday, 12/14/2004, jdow wrote -=>
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no longer
> running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
> Fedora Core 2 using spamd. SA is launched using spamc in
Where can I find documentation on the use of the _SCORE(n)_ tag?
On Dec 9, 2004, at 12:15 AM, Frank Laughlin wrote:
I apologize in advance seeing the rather detailed nature of this list,
but I've been searching for a way to pad out the numerical places
listed by SA in the _HITS_ tag. If I could f
On Dec 9, 2004, at 1:08 AM, Loren Wilton wrote:
I apologize in advance seeing the rather detailed nature of this list,
but I've been searching for a way to pad out the numerical places
listed by SA in the _HITS_ tag. If I could for a leading zero in front
of results less than 10, I could sort mail
I use Ipsentry, it has a mail loop test (ability for mail to go from
point a to point b and back again)...
http://www.ipsentry.com/
Jim Upwood
System Administrator
Bond, Schoeneck, and King
Syracuse, NY
-Original Message-
From: Johnson, S [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, Dece
From: "Johnson, S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_
in the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
<<
At 02:16 PM 12/14/2004, Johnson, S wrote:
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use the _SCORE_ in
the tag. However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the
_SCORE_ with the actual score, it' just "***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas
why I'm seeing this?
Any chance you are
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no longer
> running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
> Fedora Core 2 using spamd. SA is launched using spamc in /etc/procmailrc:
>
> :0fw
> * < 20
> | /usr
From: "Yassen Damyanov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
> >
> > You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port
(to
> > avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
> > connections, then arrange to submit _a
From: "Clarke Brunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > I scrapped SPF, actually. Found that certain providers, such as
> > T-Mobile, re-direct & intercept outbound port 25 traffic, making SPF
> > more of a pain in the neck.
> >
> > Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-
Jeff Koch wrote:
Hi:
We're getting hit with a lot of emails with blank subject lines and
blank contents. Could be some kind of address verification robot. Is SA
supposed to filter these? If not, does anyone have some custom rules
that would do it?
I asked about this last week, search for "blank
From: "Rodney Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thanks guys. I just ran sa-learn against a bunch of "ham" and "spam."
> I haven't seen any BAYES_ statements in my headers but I do see a
> statement that says "autolearn =not spam." Does this mean bayes is
> working?
A bunch - does that mean over 200 of
Andy Norris said:
> Or if a company uses more than one mail server... getting all the IPs? Is
> this just something I should email support at eBay for and see if they've
> got something of a canned response for this?
You're kidding right? First, I seriously doubt they have a canned response
for i
Are you using rewrite_header Subject SPAM(_SCORE_)
Per the upgrade docs?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/branches/3.0/UPGRADE
From: Johnson, S [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 2:17 PM
To
Rob McEwen wrote:
> RE: mail server monitoring services
>
Rob
I don't know about services, but the software we use for all our servers is
called uptime. You can contact them on http://www.uptimesoftware.com/
HTH
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
Hosting, co-location
At 01:29 PM 12/14/2004, Rodney Green wrote:
Thanks guys. I just ran sa-learn against a bunch of "ham" and "spam."
I haven't seen any BAYES_ statements in my headers but I do see a
statement that says "autolearn =not spam." Does this mean bayes is
working?
Well, it means that SA is able to learn thi
Peter Guhl wrote:
We have a really huge whitelist - all inserted in user_prefs using
"whitelist_from". But I constantly get told that mails from people at
this list got flagged as spam. That makes me wonder... do I have to do
something specific to make sure sa honors "whitelist_from"? Does it only
I'm assuming that you are wanting to see if the service is up and
running? Most network monitoring packages (including Nagios) have the
ability to monitor if an email service is running. But it wouldn't tell
you if the mail was able to make it through it. However, I have noticed
that when email
RE: Geocities (Spammers, Joe Jobbers, & Pron Spam)
Over the past few months, I've had an enormous amount of problems with
e-mail which either:
--was spam advertising a geocities hosted web site
--was child-pron spam advertising a geocities...
--was one of the previous two, but a joe jobs against
I recently upgraded from 2.5 to 3 and am attempting to use
the _SCORE_ in the tag.
However, when the tag comes back instead of replacing the _SCORE_ with the actual score, it’
just “***SPAM***(_SCORE). Any ideas why I’m seeing this?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Confidential
Whitelist_from isn't going to work for lists such as this (which is what
I think he's trying to do); the "from" addresses are the individual
senders. Whitelist_to is what's needed to whitelist lists.
-Original Message-
From: Bret Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 1
Bump ... anyone have any response to this??
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:34:28 -0500
> Subject: RE: Mail::audit & mail::spamassassin is SLOW - not using spamd ?
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
RE: mail server monitoring services
Would anyone recommend a good third-party mail server monitoring service?
I'm interested in one where I could have it send an e-mail to a special
account my server and then retrieve this e-mail. This would be done every
few minutes and I would be sent an e-mail
--On Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:37 PM -0500 Matt Kettler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keneth, can you double-check your resolv.conf. Is 127.0.0.1 the only
listed nameserver? In the past I've seen issues where Net::DNS only used
the first nameserver from resolv.conf, and would fail all DNS querie
In that case, this leads to another question -- how, then, to reliably
whitelist eBay? I would imagine they are a big target of forgers? I tried
def_whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] ebay.com
but that didn't work. Now I just have
whitelist_from [EMAIL PROTECTED] yes
With IP addresses is t
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:09:18 -0500, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) look for BAYES_ rule matches in your message hits. If you don't see
> these in most of your messages, bayes is not going.
>
> 2) you can use spamassassin --lint -D to see SA's debug output, this should
> include reas
> > Hmm, just retried it twice more, and the test succeeds on these two
> > tests. Perhaps Net::DNS gives up too quickly?
>
> Found the section in "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf" on
> dns_available and
> changed it to use a domain my server is master for, to
> guarantee that it
> has the records on
Hi:
We're getting hit with a lot of emails with blank subject lines and blank
contents. Could be some kind of address verification robot. Is SA supposed
to filter these? If not, does anyone have some custom rules that would do it?
Best Regards,
Jeff Koch
Peter Guhl wrote:
We have a really huge whitelist - all inserted in user_prefs using
"whitelist_from". But I constantly get told that mails from people at
this list got flagged as spam. That makes me wonder... do I have to do
something specific to make sure sa honors "whitelist_from"? Does it only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 10:17 AM 12/14/2004, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> >I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no longer
> >running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
> >Fedora Core 2 using spamd.
> We have a really huge whitelist - all inserted in user_prefs using
> "whitelist_from". But I constantly get told that mails from people at
> this list got flagged as spam. That makes me wonder... do I have to do
> something specific to make sure sa honors "whitelist_from"?
> Does it only shift th
At 11:59 AM 12/14/2004, Peter Guhl wrote:
We have a really huge whitelist - all inserted in user_prefs using
"whitelist_from". But I constantly get told that mails from people at
this list got flagged as spam. That makes me wonder... do I have to do
something specific to make sure sa honors "whitel
At 11:47 AM 12/14/2004, Jon Dossey wrote:
A lot of people are having problems resolving using the loopback address
(127.0.0.1), try using an IP address that is bound to one of your NIC's.
That's odd.. I myself have never done it any other way.. of course, I
always make sure that 127.0.0.1 has all
Andy
look in the examples rule in your MailScanner rules directory...
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Andy Norris wrote:
More to learn for me. I need to figure out how, then, not to pass list
mail through the scanner.
Thanks,
Andy
At 10:17 am
Wouldn't the best options be to whitelist the sending server's IP address
(209.237.227.199).
"FROM" values can be forged, both in the e-mail and in the SMTP envelope.
(Of course, we'd be in big trouble if the apache server were hacked or virus
infected... but I'm assuming that the security there
I am probably making this harder than what it is, but how do I enable the
X-Spam-Report header for ham?
Thank you,
Tom
--On Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:58 AM -0800 Kenneth Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, just retried it twice more, and the test succeeds on these two
tests. Perhaps Net::DNS gives up too quickly?
Found the section in "man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf" on dns_available and
changed it to use a d
At 11:21 AM 12/14/2004, Rodney Green wrote:
Hello. Is there a way to tell whether or not bayes filtering is
working in SA? I have the latest version of SA installed.
Ok, so you have 3.0.1.
1) look for BAYES_ rule matches in your message hits. If you don't see
these in most of your messages, bayes
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:44AM -0500, Kevin Old wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have a backup script run on my server each night that tries to
> backup items in my /root/.spamassassin directory and it seems that
> they are being accessed at the time tar is trying to archive them. I
> get:
>
>
Hello
We have a really huge whitelist - all inserted in user_prefs using
"whitelist_from". But I constantly get told that mails from people at
this list got flagged as spam. That makes me wonder... do I have to do
something specific to make sure sa honors "whitelist_from"? Does it only
shift the s
thanks Candee,
I will do this for now,
Andy
At 10:14 am 2004-12-14, you wrote:
whitelist_tousers@spamassassin.apache.org
Will do it.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Norris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:47 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: need a
More to learn for me. I need to figure out how, then, not to pass list mail
through the scanner.
Thanks,
Andy
At 10:17 am 2004-12-14, you wrote:
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:46, Andy Norris might have typed:
> As the subject implies... what would be a good rule to use to make sure all
> this ta
> --On Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:43 AM -0500 Matt Kettler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd start off simple...
> >
> > spamassassin --lint -D
> >
> > See what that can tell you. If that's showing network tests working,
try
> > adding -D to spamd's start up (note: spamd not spam
Andy
as you're using MailScanner, could do it in that ...
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Andy Norris wrote:
As the subject implies... what would be a good rule to use to make sure
all this talk about spam doesn't end up in my spam trap?
(I a
Hello. Is there a way to tell whether or not bayes filtering is
working in SA? I have the latest version of SA installed.
Thanks,
Rod
--
Get Firefox Web Browser at the link below! You won't regret it!
http://tinyurl.com/4cqbv
Hello everyone,
I have a backup script run on my server each night that tries to
backup items in my /root/.spamassassin directory and it seems that
they are being accessed at the time tar is trying to archive them. I
get:
/bin/tar: /root/.spamassassin/bayes_seen: file changed as we read it
/bin/
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:46, Andy Norris might have typed:
> As the subject implies... what would be a good rule to use to make sure all
> this talk about spam doesn't end up in my spam trap?
Don't pass list mail through your scanning engine. Best whitelist there is,
and it won't poison yo
whitelist_tousers@spamassassin.apache.org
Will do it.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Norris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:47 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: need a rule to whitelist spamassassin users group
As the subject implies... what
--On Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:43 AM -0500 Matt Kettler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd start off simple...
spamassassin --lint -D
See what that can tell you. If that's showing network tests working, try
adding -D to spamd's start up (note: spamd not spamc) and check your
syslogs. (wa
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
Why not configure your MTA to relay mail ONLY on encrypted authenticated
sessions, and deliver locally (after some anti-spam checks) on plain
sessions, all this done at port 25?
The subject at hand is getting SPF working for providers that block port
2
As the subject implies... what would be a good rule to use to make sure all
this talk about spam doesn't end up in my spam trap?
(I also need to whitelist the mailscanner list messages.)
I'm just cutting my teeth on the rules writing gig. My first was to get all
those jackrabb1t vlbrat0r5 out of
At 10:17 AM 12/14/2004, Kenneth Porter wrote:
I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no longer
running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
Fedora Core 2 using spamd. SA is launched using spamc in /etc/procmailrc:
I'd start off simple...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:52:37 -, Clarke Brunt wrote
> Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> > Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
> > (Starbucks) - it gets kicked back because SF.net uses SPF, and my SPF
> > records don't show m55415454.tmodns.net in the SPF records. So what can
I realized that since my reboot last week that network tests are no longer
running. Any hints on tracking down why? I'm stilling running 3.0, on
Fedora Core 2 using spamd. SA is launched using spamc in /etc/procmailrc:
:0fw
* < 20
| /usr/bin/spamc
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 15:52, Clarke Brunt wrote:
>
> You can set up your own SMTP server which listens on an alternative port (to
> avoid redirection of 25), and allows relaying for _authenticated_
> connections, then arrange to submit _all_ your mail through it. Then your
> SPF record will
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> I scrapped SPF, actually. Found that certain providers, such as
> T-Mobile, re-direct & intercept outbound port 25 traffic, making SPF
> more of a pain in the neck.
>
> Example: I try to send mail to this list from a T-Mobile Hotspot
> (Starbucks) - it gets kicked back bec
Joe
I used MimeSweeper 4.2 before migrating to MS/SA combination just over
a year ago. Was terrible at catching spam so I moved. I didn't try 4.3
as it was nasty to upgrade to (uninstall 4.2 and re-install 4.3,
reconfigure from scratch was the best way).
They've since released newer versions a
Clarke Brunt wrote:
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
It's certainly not a simple subject: anyone who isn't familiar see
http://spf.pobox.com/
So long as you're careful, and realise that mistakes migh
I've had a new variant of a Nigerian spam arrive this morning.
The text is laid out differently than I usually see, anyway, it managed to
score negatively so I just wanted to check if there is a repository for
depositing it as a sample? On one of the wiki's or the SARE site?
Thanks
Alan
Thanks to everyone who replied. I figured SURBL had a lot to do with
the less frequent updates. I was also looking for more of the "inside
dirt" kind of stuff, like the Ninja meltdowns. ;-)
>>> "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13 8:25 PM >>>
> Is it me, or have the updates to the SARE "cust
> Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why
is that? How many
> people use it (on this mailing list)?
It's certainly not a simple subject: anyone who isn't familiar see
http://spf.pobox.com/
So long as you're careful, and realise that mistakes might precent mail
This issue was solved.
It was EXACTLY a DNS issue. The first DNS server in my /etc/resolve.conf
was NOT configured to listen to its pribvate net interface.
There were couple of externel servers in the /etc/resolve.conf, which
help SA to conclude that DNS resoluiton works:
debug: is Net::DNS::Reso
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 09:45, Jeff Chan wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2004, 11:17:23 PM, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
> > Gary, Wolfgang: thank you for replying!
>
> > On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:09, Gary Verchick wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a bit of work, but my RBL checks improved dramatically
On Monday, December 13, 2004, 11:17:23 PM, Yassen Damyanov wrote:
> Gary, Wolfgang: thank you for replying!
> On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:09, Gary Verchick wrote:
>>
>> This is a bit of work, but my RBL checks improved dramatically by
>> using a local DNS cache, namely djbdns.
> I actually hav
Gary, Wolfgang: thank you for replying!
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:09, Gary Verchick wrote:
>
> This is a bit of work, but my RBL checks improved dramatically by
> using a local DNS cache, namely djbdns.
I actually have it -- the firewall runs BIND9 and the mail box is
tunned to use it.
On
At 04:43 PM 12/13/2004 -0800, jdow wrote:
Here is the full set of his stuff I am running. So far it has hit no ham.
Yep, that's the set.. it's pretty decent stuff. The only limitation I see
is it won't catch r0lex, rol3x, or roIex, just rolex. Hence I quickly
hacked one up that uses the same char
Hello Rob,
Sunday, December 12, 2004, 9:48:43 PM, you wrote:
RB> Thanks for your comments on my rulesets, it was just the guidance
RB> that I needed. My rulesets up until your comments were based on my
RB> ideas, so that should answer any of your questions.
You're welcome.
>> You don't indicate
Hello Chris, Joe,
Monday, December 13, 2004, 12:27:55 PM, you wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Custom Rules
>>
>>Is it me, or have the updates to the SARE "custom rules" and "other
>>rules" pages seem to be a lot less frequent than they u
Hi, I have heard that SPF is controversial among mail administrators. Why is
that? How many
people use it (on this mailing list)?
Peter
__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> Further to my previous message, are there any rulesets which will handle
> all these mortgage spams which pretend to be following up previous
> correspondance?
Note completely. The SARE biz-market rules will catch some of this, but we
need to get some new updates in for the latest obfu mortgage
Here are my current watch-catchers. These will end up in a ruleset at some
point, doubtless with modifications. you probably will have to fiddle the
scores on these a little.
body LW_ROLEX /\broll?ex\b/i
score LW_ROLEX 1
describe LW_ROLEX Mentions Rolex
body __LW_OBREPLICA /\brepIicas?\b/
> I wanted the term included rather than a score so I can setup a filter in
> the mail client to dump those messages that are above a ceretain score,
Use STARS. Ugly, but then you can filter on a long line of stars.
Loren
> Is it me, or have the updates to the SARE "custom rules" and "other
> rules" pages seem to be a lot less frequent than they used to be?
Yup.
> Does
> anyone know why?
Yup.
Loren
Oh, you want to *know* why? :-)
Several reasons.
1.The rules we ahve now are working pretty darn w
I've been running this set of rules against the "m ort ga ge" type
spam I've been receiving in tremendous bulk of late. It needs some
cleanup. But it works so I figured to share it.
--8<--
body JD_MANGY_MORTGAGE /\bm.?o.?r.?t.?g.?a.?g.?e\b/i
body JD_MANGY_APPLICATION /\ba.?p.?p.?l.?i
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 05:51 PM 12/13/2004, Geoff Soper wrote:
> >My current spam problem consists almost entirely of spam advertising
> >watches and various pain relief products. I have a reasonable variety of
> >rulesets installed including the following (it's not definiti
Someone passed some ROLEX rules through the list a week or two ago. They
are in my user_prefs and working just fine. I'd recommend them to the
SARE people.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "Geoff Soper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My current spam problem consists almost entirely of spam adver
Further to my previous message, are there any rulesets which will handle
all these mortgage spams which pretend to be following up previous
correspondance?
Thanks,
Geoff
From: "Kris Deugau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> jdow wrote:
> > Copy it to a folder is probably the best shot if he does not directly
> > export the files as MBOX files. Outlook mangles headers a little, I
> > understand. But it's far easier to deal with than OutlookExpress.
>
> OE does one thing that
From: "Kris Deugau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ron McKeating wrote:
> > I am intrigued by the rule
> >
> >* 3.4 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
> >
> > What does this mean?
>
> After a bit of checking, you've likely got a custom score setting for
> that rule that's very o
At 05:51 PM 12/13/2004, Geoff Soper wrote:
My current spam problem consists almost entirely of spam advertising
watches and various pain relief products. I have a reasonable variety of
rulesets installed including the following (it's not definitive as I don't
have access to the server right now):
S
88 matches
Mail list logo
