At Fri Jan 23 21:30:58 2004, Martin Radford wrote:
Five days to reach the list! I hoped SF would have cleared the
backlog sooner than that!
> This seems to be a signature with these mails, but I haven't put
> together a rule for them yet. The following *might* work:
>
> header L_SPAMMY_RCVD R
At Fri Jan 23 06:46:33 2004, Thomas Kinghorn wrote:
>
> Below are the headers & I have attached the mail.
>
> These are getting worse.
>
> To top it off, SA learned it as HAM.
>
> If anyone knows of any rules that could work on these mails, It would be
> greatly appreciated.
[I've posted mo
Quoting Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg28318.html
That's a great post...we should add it to the wiki, if you're so inclined.
I'd be happy to do it, but I didn't just want to plug it in there w/o asking
the author first.
Regards;
DaC
--
At 01:16 AM 1/23/04 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
Trim off the Bayes poison and relearn it as spam. The payload
contains several unique misspellings that would be good Bayes
signatures.
Why trim off the bayes poison? Doing so just poisoning your bayes database
in a different way.
http://www.mail-arc
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Thomas Kinghorn wrote:
> Below are the headers & I have attached the mail.
>
> These are getting worse.
>
> To top it off, SA learned it as HAM.
>
> If anyone knows of any rules that could work on these mails, It would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks All.
> Regards
> Tom
Title: Message
Below are the headers & I have attached the
mail.
These are getting worse.
To top it off, SA learned it as
HAM.
If anyone knows of any rules that could work on these
mails, It would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks All.
Regards
Tom
PS: I am using SA 2.62.
Rece
