On 02/07/2011 05:37 PM, Mahmoud Khonji wrote:
On 01/21/2011 01:06 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simpl
On 2/8/11 3:15 AM, "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> I'm somewhat annoyed by the armchair quarterback negative comments on
> this topic. (Not just you) didn't read the rest of this thread to
> realize this particular concern is moot.
Ditto. I don't really have time to participate in this activi
On 19/01/11 15:02, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:56:47 -0500
Lee Dilkie wrote:
The second was that I've found that the other spam-catching filtering
is doing a much better job than it was years ago and turning off
greylisting didn't adversely affect the amount of spam that got
t
Hi, Steve,
> http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Interesting. I think you should credit me for this:
"Once that has been proven then that â is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen."
Our CanIt system has been doing that since at least 2005, and
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:47:12 +
Steve Freegard wrote:
> See http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
"Once that has been proven then that 'hostid' is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen."
:) Our CanIt system has been doing this since at least 20
Hi David,
On 08/02/11 15:57, David F. Skoll wrote:
Hi, Steve,
http://www.fsl.com/index.php/resources/whitepapers/99
Interesting. I think you should credit me for this:
"Once that has been proven then that â is exempted from further
greylisting for 40 days since it was last seen."
Our CanI
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:04:37 +
Steve Freegard wrote:
> Sure - credit where it is due; I've you to the 'Thanks' section.
Thanks. And also, my apologies for posting to the list... that was supposed
to be a private message. :(
/me mutters something about email amateurs not understanding how e
