On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0500, Matt Kettler is rumored to have said:
>
> I'd also be hesitant to say *every* message with the mark is spam.. At
> least one of the SA-devels (Theo) puts it on most of his messages.
As do I.
These people who arbitrarily decide to change the score of a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 15 January 2004 05:34, Jeff Fulmer wrote:
> Why does HABEAS_SWE score -8.0? EVERYmessage that I recieve that matches
> that criteria is spam. I've since added 16 point to HABEAS_SWE.
>
I set mine to 0, because some non-spammer do use the
At 08:34 AM 1/15/04 -0500, Jeff Fulmer wrote:
Why does HABEAS_SWE score -8.0? EVERYmessage that I recieve that matches
that criteria is spam. I've since added 16 point to HABEAS_SWE.
Read the archives of this list.. this has been discussed almost nonstop
since the weekend...
or read www.habeas.c
Why does HABEAS_SWE score -8.0? EVERYmessage that I recieve that matches
that criteria is spam. I've since added 16 point to HABEAS_SWE.
Jeff
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuratio
At 06:56 PM 1/12/04 -0800, Robert Menschel wrote:
Has anyone else NOT been bothered by this???
Not terribly.. I had a few sneak through, but most got tagged.
One of them did manage to get a BAYES_44 rating, but that quickly changed
with a little training.
However, I will admit that I've been run
Monday, January 12, 2004, 7:57:03 AM, Greg wrote:
gic> They've noted that we give HABEAS_SWE a score of -4.6 I think. I'm
gic> adjusted it for my machines to zero. Here's the headers:
Has anyone else NOT been bothered by this???
Sure I've received some of these spam, but my SA has marked them as
They've noted that we give HABEAS_SWE a score of -4.6 I think. I'm
adjusted it for my machines to zero. Here's the headers:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from beefcake.intouch.ca (beefcake.intouch.ca [64.69.91.201])
by intouch.ca (Postfix) with ESMT
