On Friday 01 October 2004 04:10 pm, Carnegie, Martin wrote:
> >So they're saying they can't be RFC compliant? The only thing I see
>
> that
>
> >might need to be fixed is: FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA
> >
> >Other then that, it seems _they_ have some work to do.
> >
> >--Chris
>
> Well they said that hopeful
At 03:47 PM 10/1/2004, Carnegie, Martin wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.1 required=5.0
tests=FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA,HTML_30_40,
HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no
version=2.63
Here's a question for you. How'd your copy of SA 2.63 end up with a score
of 4.1?
Carnegie, Martin wrote:
Received: from [24.71.223.10] (helo=pd3mo2so.prod.shaw.ca)
by atcoinss.atco.ca with esmtp (Exim )
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
id 1C5AtN-0003nf-Tt; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:26:17 -0600
(This looks like the section FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA is firing on.)
If I'm reading c
>So they're saying they can't be RFC compliant? The only thing I see
that
>might need to be fixed is: FAKE_HELO_SHAW_CA
>Other then that, it seems _they_ have some work to do.
>--Chris
Well they said that hopefully with the next version they would, but they
gave me no ETA (other than "it is co
>-Original Message-
>From: Carnegie, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:48 PM
>To: Spamassassin-Users
>Subject: [SA-List] IPlanet and SA
>
>
>We are currently seeing emails from external customers being marked as
>spam in SA
We are currently seeing emails from external customers being marked as
spam in SA when they come from an ISP called Shaw. I have been talking
to their tech support about these emails as I think that this is all on
their end due to the format of the email. As a Shaw customer myself. I
sent an ema
