Loren Wilton wrote:
That rule sounds suspeciously like one I wrote a long time ago, and
once posted here. If it is, then the problem is probably the
double-quoting in the display name of the To line, or the fact that
the display name happens to match the email address rather than
something like "J
2004 1:33 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: NOT_TO_ME
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: *SPAM* BLM beach land
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:19:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Typ
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:33:44PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote:
> tests=BAYES_90,
> HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE, NOT_TO_ME
>
> WHat would have triggered the "NOT_TO_ME" rule? I don't understand that
> rule very much... :(
There is no standard rule named NOT_TO_ME .
uot;
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailgate.pbp.net
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.1 tagged_above=-999.0 required=6.0
tests=BAYES_90,
HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE, NOT_TO_ME
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Flag: YES
WHat would have triggered the "NOT_TO_ME" rule? I don't understand that
rule very much... :(
