dman wrote: d> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 12:23:40PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote: d> | dman wrote: d> d> | d> This message was _not_ flagged by SA. Who would want to send it d> | d> anyways? (all intact except for the Received: headers) d> d> | Interesting. d> d> yeah. d> d> | Could be AWL flooding. d> d> Nope. I don't use the AWL. It also didn't have any mention of the d> AWL in the X-Spam-Status header and got a score of 3.2.
No, I mean the spammer is trying to seed your AWL with "clean" mail from them. Then if they send a dirty mail, it'll get pulled towards cleanliness by the AWL. They don't know you don't have AWL turned on. d> Someone commented on it off-list : d> It's quite possible that they just screwed up their spam program d> and sent out a messed up message. (Not like I've never seen them d> send out bogus bogus messages before. Or how about three copies of d> the same message? Yeah...) Yes, incompetence on the sending end is certainly a strong possibility. C _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
