On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:36:36 +0800
jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Man you guys blew it.
> * 2.5 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
> All he did was quote my CC.
> It is not like he forged anything.
It's not like it scored 5 points, and it did what it's
Man you guys blew it.
* 2.5 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
All he did was quote my CC.
It is not like he forged anything.
P.S., https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/ doesn't mention when it
itself will someday come back online after maintenance.
FreeMail:
On 2010/03/22 1:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, ther
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
> Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing
to distinguish the mail
On 2010/03/22 12:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing
to distinguish the mail you got an FP report on from 419 spams that pu
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Should FREEMAIL_REPLY really be looking in attachments
Sure. Just looking at the presence of freemail domains, there's nothing to
distinguish the mail you got an FP report on from 419 spams that put the
pitch and reply address in an attac
I recently received a FP complaint on a message that hit FREEMAIL_REPLY.
The FP complaint is not in a format that would be useful for posting,
but I don't believe that's going to be necessary.
Here's what happened:
some_u...@comcast.net saves a web page and sends
