jdow wrote:
You mean you actually found a REAL .info site!! Wow! Good digging!
how about www.mailscanner.info.
This one even gets inserted in mail scanned by mailscanner, which will
cause that mail to be caught by other SA installations:)
On Friday 05 May 2006 17:41, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> You could also use Thunderbird as a news reader only (no e-mail), and
>> post using the GMane portal. Perhaps your Outlook version even
>> supports NNTP. It would be a very strange piece of software if it
>> doesn't support threading and referenci
Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 14:50, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I'm stuck using this at the office in order to work
> > with the Exchange server. I prefer Thunderbird and I would use it,
> > but that only gives me email (via IMAP). Anyone know of anything
> > beside
On Friday 05 May 2006 14:50, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm stuck using this at the office in order to work
> with the Exchange server. I prefer Thunderbird and I would use it,
> but that only gives me email (via IMAP). Anyone know of anything
> besides Outlook that can interface with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Evolution works with Exchange, there is a plugin for it.. It can
> access calendar, contacts, and email. I have it on my Linspire
> workstation - who needs windows... :)
Nice try. :)
I've looked at Evolution, and I'd like to try it, but I'm stuck with
Windows for t
Evolution works with Exchange, there is a plugin for it.. It can access
calendar, contacts, and email. I have it on my Linspire workstation - who
needs windows... :)
> Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
>> On Thursday 04 May 2006 22:49, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>
>> > Yea, I'm using an old version of Outlook whi
Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
> On Thursday 04 May 2006 22:49, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> > Yea, I'm using an old version of Outlook which doesn't support
> > threading.
>
> You would do your fellow list-subscribers a huge favor if you'd use a
> client which does. It's very hard to keep track of convsations
Friday 05 May 2006 12:50 skrev jdow:
> It sounds like he got suckered with the .info site. It seems like all the
> spammers in the known universe dove into that one wholesale.
.biz has to be one tad worse, right? I even know someone with a .info domain,
although she only appears to use it for mai
On Thursday 04 May 2006 22:49, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Yea, I'm using an old version of Outlook which doesn't support
> threading.
You would do your fellow list-subscribers a huge favor if you'd use a client
which does. It's very hard to keep track of convsations this way. If you can't
find a prope
It sounds like he got suckered with the .info site. It seems like all the
spammers in the known universe dove into that one wholesale.
{o.o}
- Original Message -
From: "Wiebe Cazemier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Friday 05 May 2006 00:29, jdow wrote:
You mean you actually found a REAL .i
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:05, Loren Wilton wrote:
> Essentially ALL spam rules "can" misfire on legit mail. In fact
> statistically most of them WILL misfire on some small percentage of legit
> mail. If they are tested and scored reasonably then there should be a
> fairly small chance of legit ma
On Friday 05 May 2006 00:29, jdow wrote:
> You mean you actually found a REAL .info site!! Wow! Good digging!
>
> {^_^}
Well, it's not "real" site. I just got into discussion about Settlers 2 with
somebody, and he pointed me to his (personal) forum. It is not "real" as in
that there are hardl
> If all the rule does is check for uri's in a certain form, then I would
say
> that this specific rule can backfire on completely legitimate mail.
Essentially ALL spam rules "can" misfire on legit mail. In fact
statistically most of them WILL misfire on some small percentage of legit
mail. If t
From: "Wiebe Cazemier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
What exactly does the URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI rule mean? The description is:
URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"
I get false positive spam which have URI's in the .info TLD in it. Like:
Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
> On Thursday 04 May 2006 16:00, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
> > uri URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI /^(?:https?:\/\/)?[^\/]+(? > {7,}\.info\/(?=\S{15,})\S*\?/i
> >
> > Let's see if I can get this straight...
> >
> > (?:https?:\/\/)? (optionally) "http://"; or "https://"; followed by
>
On Thursday 04 May 2006 16:00, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> uri URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI /^(?:https?:\/\/)?[^\/]+(? {7,}\.info\/(?=\S{15,})\S*\?/i
>
> Let's see if I can get this straight...
>
> (?:https?:\/\/)? (optionally) "http://"; or "https://"; followed by
> [^\/]+ one or more of any
Wiebe Cazemier wrote:
>
> What exactly does the URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI rule mean? The description
> is:
>
> URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"
>
> I get false positive spam which have URI's in the .info TLD in it.
> Like:
&
Thursday 04 May 2006 14:42 skrev Wiebe Cazemier:
> Hi,
>
> What exactly does the URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI rule mean? The description is:
>
> URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"
>
uri URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI /^(?:https?:\/\/)?[^\/]+(?http://&
Hi,
What exactly does the URI_NO_WWW_INFO_CGI rule mean? The description is:
URI: CGI in .info TLD other than third-level "www"
I get false positive spam which have URI's in the .info TLD in it. Like:
http://foo.hello.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1
Does this rul
19 matches
Mail list logo
