jdow wrote:
That's true, but you'd still be over 5.0 even without it.
Why did you modify it? Bayes zero should typically have a fairly hefty
negative score.
It seems that the art of "error and ignore" has replaced the art of
trial and error.
Given the OP From display, we can only say: s
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>
>
>> Screaming Eagle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> All,
>>> Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
>>> pts rule name description
>>> --
>>>
From: "Philip Prindeville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Screaming Eagle wrote:
All,
Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
pts rule name description
--
--
-1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Screaming Eagle wrote:
>
>
>>All,
>>Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
>>pts rule name description
>> --
>>--
>>-1.8 ALL_TRUSTEDPassed thro
I second that.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:29 PM
> To: spam mailling list
> Subject: Re: Internal email marked as spam...
>
> Screaming Eagle wrote:
> > All,
> > Emailing
Screaming Eagle wrote:
All,
Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
pts rule name description
--
--
-1.8 ALL_TRUSTEDPassed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
1.1 MIME_H
All,
Emailing with outlook and from internal network is marked as spam:
pts rule name description
-- --
-1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
1.1 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: M
