On 7/22/11 12:08 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 7/22/11 12:04 PM, Bret Miller wrote:
Well, I don't actually subscribe to any active techtarget lists, but
I do still get marketing garbage from them. Got one on the 19th that
looked fine here.
packet captures SEEMS to indicate its them: note t
On 07/21, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:41:34 -0400
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> > 72_active.cf:header FS_REPLICA Subject =~ /replica/i
>
> > anyone else think that ANY rule that scores above a 3 is asking for
> > trouble?
>
> Yikes!
>
> I think any rule that l
On 7/22/11 12:04 PM, Bret Miller wrote:
Well, I don't actually subscribe to any active techtarget lists, but I
do still get marketing garbage from them. Got one on the 19th that
looked fine here.
Bret
I am running a packet capture on one of our larger clients, looking for
their net. Ill see
Well, I don't actually subscribe to any active techtarget lists, but I
do still get marketing garbage from them. Got one on the 19th that
looked fine here.
Bret
On 7/22/2011 8:50 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
any of you subscribed to techtarget or crm emails?
seems on june 16th or 17th, somet
any of you subscribed to techtarget or crm emails?
seems on june 16th or 17th, something broke. and I am trying to
determine if its something we did or something they did.
headers come in, received, received, then a BIG BLANK LIKE, then
DATA DKIM
(its almost like they shoved an extra DATA\r\
On Thursday 14 July 2011 06:13:39 Yves Goergen wrote:
> On 12.07.2011 10:39 CE(S)T, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > There is the other thread about some patching for IPv6, but could someone
> > post the current status with this problem or some idea what should be
> > done for now better than just not loa
On 07/21, Michael Scheidell wrote:
but, this rule seems to be way too aggressive.
50_scores.cf:score FS_REPLICA 1.630 3.599 2.028 3.599 # n=2
50_scores.cf:score FS_REPLICAWATCH 3.237 1.715 1.733 3.015 # n=2
72_active.cf:header FS_REPLICA Subject =~ /replica/i
72_active.cf:des
