At 03:14 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
I've suggested before on the list that predefined whitelists for places
like amazon.com should be much less than -100, just -10, or perhaps even
-5. Enough to offset any "spamminess" that might otherwise bump them over
over the threshold, but not s
At 21:41 22/06/03 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 12:15 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no ind
At 12:15 PM 6/23/03 +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no indication of what version of SpamAssassin proce
Atalk] Spam got score -80.6 - Spamassassin 2.55
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
>Hi,
>
>got this nice baby:
>
>Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no indication of what version of
At 00:41 23/06/03 +0200, Bernd Kuhls wrote:
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
[snip]
Just wondering, how exactly does posting a copy of that message to this
list help anyone ?
a) There is no indication of what version of SpamAssassin processed the
message, its not even obvious that it
Hi,
got this nice baby:
Greetings, Bernd
--cut
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from router ([192.168.1.8])
by router with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
id 19UD83-0006oj-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:16:07 +0200
Received: from localhost
by local
