On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 06:26 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 19/10/10 22:56, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:41 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> > > It hits a stack of rules here (some are my own scoring) - looks like
> > > * 25 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LA
On tir 19 okt 2010 23:34:04 CEST, Dennis German wrote
http://www.Real-World-Systems.com/mail/spam.un
sqirrelmail is old :)
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 19/10/10 22:56, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:41 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
On 19/10/10 22:34, Dennis German wrote:
I am surprised this plain text spam did not trip for US$350,000
sa 3.2.4
Uhm, a generic amount of money on it's own is not a sign of spam. You
know, some
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 19:29 -0400, Dennis German wrote:
> Thank you fro the suggestion of adding BRBL and JMF.
> Can you please point me to some detailed information explaining how to do
> that.
> PS I am on a shared server without root access. ( or I would have upgraded SA)
The actual rules to
On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:41 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 19/10/10 22:34, Dennis German wrote:
>>> I am surprised this plain text spam did not trip for US$350,000
>>> sa 3.2.4
>
> Uhm, a generic amount of money on it's own is not a sign o
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 22:41 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 19/10/10 22:34, Dennis German wrote:
> > I am surprised this plain text spam did not trip for US$350,000
> > sa 3.2.4
Uhm, a generic amount of money on it's own is not a sign of spam. You
know, some people do deal with and talk about money.
On 19/10/10 22:34, Dennis German wrote:
I am surprised this plain text spam did not trip for US$350,000
sa 3.2.4
http://www.Real-World-Systems.com/mail/spam.un
It hits a stack of rules here (some are my own scoring) - looks like
it's time to upgrade to SA 3.3.1.
X-Spam-Report:
* 6
