On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/07/2012 10:36 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/07, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
This is my fault, of course, but I'm not allowed to mass-check this
stuff. It's ongoing legal correspondence.
Er, what? You're not allowed to provide a list of which rules hit each
of your emails? Or you're not allowed to run a program on your emails
that isn't spamassassin? Or did I just not put "This does not require
sending us your email" in bold enough times on the masscheck page?
This is a client of ours (a law firm) and not the company that I work
for. *I* know there's probably nothing sensitive in there, but just to
cover my ass I'd need to get permission to send the results off-site.
Only the list of rules which hit is publicly visible, the actual content
of the message is not. Any leakage of confidential information is very
unlikely.
From their perspective, it's just simpler to say no: it's not worth the
time or effort to even think about if there's a minute chance of it
coming back to bite them legally.
I will take a look at "claims manager" in the 419 rules.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...the good of having the government prohibited from doing harm
far outweighs the harm of having it obstructed from doing good.
-- Mike@mike-istan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until Veterans Day
