On 06/03/2010 05:29 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 3-Jun-2010, at 03:27, Ned Slider wrote:
Can we re-evaluate how useful this is, or maybe exclude To: and CC: headers?
After several years I have trained all my users to use the Bcc header for any
email going to more than 4 or 5 users and to address th
On 3-Jun-2010, at 03:27, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> Can we re-evaluate how useful this is, or maybe exclude To: and CC: headers?
After several years I have trained all my users to use the Bcc header for any
email going to more than 4 or 5 users and to address those emails to themselves.
To me, this
On 05/25/2010 12:14 AM, Adam Katz wrote:
My original rule:
header SINGLE_HEADER_2K ALL:raw =~ /^(?=.{2048,3071}$)/m
Karsten Bräckelmann noted:
It does not match a single header, let alone a *specific*
header as the one mentioned, but ALL headers. It effectively
checks the entire headers' s
My original rule:
header SINGLE_HEADER_2K ALL:raw =~ /^(?=.{2048,3071}$)/m
Karsten Bräckelmann noted:
>>> It does not match a single header, let alone a *specific*
>>> header as the one mentioned, but ALL headers. It effectively
>>> checks the entire headers' size.
Karsten then corrected
On 5/21/10 7:35 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 00:13 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 17:43 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
header SINGLE_HEADER_2K ALL:raw =~ /^(?=.{2048,3071}$)/m
It does not match a single header, let alone a *specifi
On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 00:13 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 17:43 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> > header SINGLE_HEADER_2K ALL:raw =~ /^(?=.{2048,3071}$)/m
>
> It does not match a single header, let alone a *specific* header as the
> one mentioned, but ALL headers. It effec
On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 17:43 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> header SINGLE_HEADER_2K ALL:raw =~ /^(?=.{2048,3071}$)/m
It does not match a single header, let alone a *specific* header as the
one mentioned, but ALL headers. It effectively checks the entire
headers' size.
As I understood it, the desired
Michael Scheidell mused:
>> would adding 1 point for each 1K of header length help?
J.D. Falk responded:
> Interesting idea! I don't know the precise semantics of the
> contents of that header, but this certainly sounds possible.
Seconded.
I don't think this is efficient at all (I'm leaning on
On May 8, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Yahoo's own DKIM implementation? header signing?
Neither. It's related to their anti-spam system, but not intended for end-user
parsing.
> would adding 1 point for each 1K of header length help?
Interesting idea! I don't know the precise
