>>> On 12/1/2006 at 7:01 AM, Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys -- vague hints as to the contents of the mail really don't help. > > It's spam -- we're all getting thousands of spams a day, most of us (ok, I > for one at least) seem to be finding those going into the spam bins > without our help, and I'd say it's unlikely that many of us (ok, me > again ;) are going to go rooting through the trash there looking for > something that seems to match what you're hinting at. > > Why not just post a spample, or a link to one? > > --j. > > Joe Zitnik writes: >> >>> On 12/1/2006 at 5:22 AM, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Friday 01 December 2006 00:29, Loren Wilton wrote: >> > guess you're just lucky. I just went through the last month's spam >> and I >> > can't find anything with a subject about credit ratings. >> >> Oh, no, I didn't mean to suggest it was in the subject. >> >> Its usually some random subject. Then a paragraph starting with "your >> credit >> rating doesn't matter to us" with the usual misspellings, etc, followed >> by >> (usually) a geocities link and some random text at the end. >> >> -- >> _____________________________________ >> John Andersen >> >> >> I was wondering the same thing. Even given the random text, I would >> think between the default rules, and the fact that I've dumped a bunch >> in to bayes, that the spammy content would be enough to nail them for >> sure. I'm still seeing a significant number skate by. It wasn't really a vague hint, or rather, if you're receiving them, you know exactly the spam he's talking about. I wasn't asking for a solution, I was just commenting on the fact that, like John, I was surprised these spams would make it through. At least that's why I didn't post the contents or a link to the contents.
