[SAtalk] ATTN DEVELOPERS: Rule out-of-date??

2003-12-06 Thread Charles Gregory
Greetings! One of our users today reported a mis-identification of legitimate mail primarily based upon two tests: 1.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTMLOutlook can't send HTML message only 1.1 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGSOutlook can't send HTML in this format Here are the headers I believe to be

Re: [SAtalk] ATTN DEVELOPERS: Rule out-of-date??

2003-12-06 Thread Matt Kettler
There are a lot of outlook 2003 related bugs that have recently been fixed in CVS and are slated for 2.61.. http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2344 http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2538 Theoreticaly, these may fix your problem. You can also look at the other

Re: [WL] Re: [SAtalk] ATTN DEVELOPERS: Rule out-of-date??

2003-12-06 Thread Charles Gregory
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Matt Kettler wrote: There are a lot of outlook 2003 related bugs that have recently been fixed in CVS and are slated for 2.61.. http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2344 http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2538 Theoreticaly, these may fix your

Re: [WL] Re: [SAtalk] ATTN DEVELOPERS: Rule out-of-date??

2003-12-06 Thread Bill Landry
- Original Message - From: Charles Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Matt Kettler wrote: There are a lot of outlook 2003 related bugs that have recently been fixed in CVS and are slated for 2.61.. http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2344

Re: [SAtalk] ATTN DEVELOPERS: Rule out-of-date??

2003-12-06 Thread Charles Gregory
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Bill Landry wrote: Perhaps it would be a nice idea to somehow post an interim 'patch' that would do nothing more than adjust the scores on rules that seem to have problems? So adjust your scores for these tests in /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf file. I've already