jdebert, (since im not reply to the bully troll) he doesnt learn, worried about flame wars but kicks off by calling other people smart asses, just ignore him, most of the rest of the internet has done for a while
On 10/1/14, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > Am 30.09.2014 um 18:12 schrieb jdebert: >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:19:10 +0200 >> Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >>> >>> Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist: >>>> On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>>> >>>>> please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before >>>>> reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the >>>>> list-folder :-) >>>> >>>> Please teach your users to filter on the List-ID: header rather than >>>> Subject: for this list. The issue can be entirely avoided without >>>> requiring everyone else in the world to alter their behaviour >>> >>> the [SPAM] marker comes *before* all other sieve-filters >>> otherwise it would not catch faked From-Headers >>> >>> it's not a big deal but i see that mistake sometimes >>> also in business communication - not real good >> >> I do not see any subject lines in this thread with [SPAM] in them. I >> rarely see them in this list at all. (I suspect people are aware it can >> cause some poorer filtering implementations to delete them.) > > so what - this was a new thread to not hijack others > >> Perhaps you need to look closer to home for this problem? > > for sure not if it appears in the middle of subjects > >> Meantime, it is highly recommended that, if someone subscribes to a >> list about spam, one MUST make an exception to their filtering rules as >> previously mentioned. It's also very sensible. It is ridiculous to >> insist that people talking about spam stop using the word "spam" > > the SA list has a -100 score > > that won't change the fact that it is in general a bad > attitude not look at the subject of a mail someone > writes, but so be it until another flamewar starts > because some smart asses need to reply to a hint > wich needs no repsonse at all and was intended to > just point out a common mistake > >
