[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:26 AM
To: Mike Kuentz
Cc: 'Larry Gilson'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
>
> IMHO, I think finding out if a message is legit carries just as much
> weight
> as findin
>
> IMHO, I think finding out if a message is legit carries just as much
> weight
> as finding out if it is crap. If I can combine x amount of tests to
> verify
> that it's legitimately from an Exchange server, it would be worth it from
> the perspective that I could maybe side line those message
--
From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame,
--
From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame,
Hey Mike,
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2
> Good call, I'm sorry I missed that. What a shame, I was
> hoping I was on to something, if nothing other than
> solidifying the MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE rule. Oh well, back to
> the drawing board!
>
> Mike
I am curious, does MSGID_GO
er 05, 2003 8:55 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [RD] MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE
Hey Mike,
The fix is post SP2 which means it was rolled into SP3. A vast majority of
the Exchange servers should be at least at that service pack if not SP4
which was released at the end of
Hey Mike,
The fix is post SP2 which means it was rolled into SP3. A vast majority of
the Exchange servers should be at least at that service pack if not SP4
which was released at the end of 2000.
--Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kuentz (2)
> There is always a lot of good ta
Chris Santerre wrote:
We tend to be very vague on custom negative rules. Spammers are listening on
this list. Most of it happens off list. really not much else we can do about
it.
So to speak... look @your ham... analyse... and build *your* custom
negative scorers :-)
s.
We tend to be very vague on custom negative rules. Spammers are listening on
this list. Most of it happens off list. really not much else we can do about
it.
As for your example, it wouldn't seem like a good rule because the patch
fixes this. So there is no way that it would differentiate ham fro
