On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Thomas Kinghorn wrote:
> Below are the headers & I have attached the mail.
>
> These are getting worse.
>
> To top it off, SA learned it as HAM.
>
> If anyone knows of any rules that could work on these mails, It would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks All.
> Regards
> Tom
It looks like you aren't using any network tests. Could you?
The sending IP address in that message hit 7 of my DSBLs so
it's a known spam source.
Trim off the Bayes poison and relearn it as spam. The payload
contains several unique misspellings that would be good Bayes
signatures.
Get the BigEvil list and add the web site host in those
URLs to it. (that "casdetut.com" thing).
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
