>>> "Rob McEwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/09/05 01:36PM:
> Of course I don't propose any sort of rules changes. Generally,
> someone's
> bad behavior will speak for itself in that the more egregious their
> spamming, the more URI & RBL blacklists they will appear on. Also, use
> of
> sp
> Are these the same recipients who find it easier to report an item as
> spam than unsubscribe from the list they had to confirm three times
> that
> they wanted to be on? :)
>
> The problem is compounded with my users because when a person leaves
> the
> company their e-mail address (along
>>> "Rob McEwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/09/05 12:59PM:
> OBSERVATION:
>
> Could some of us be treating unsolicited Business-to-Consumer and
> unsolicited Business-To-Business the same? Should they be treated the
> same?
Of course we treat them the same. They all go through SpamAssassin.
I'm seeing a lot of spam slip through today. The entry in my Bayes database is
0.351 31 18 1105745757 www.q*e*n*.com
(The *'s indicate the same letter as before, so qqee??) I don't want any more
positive hits on this.
I believe that the 0.351 is the weight based off of the spa
