Hello Roman Katzer everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 05:40 you (Roman Katzer) wrote:
Interesting. This SpamAssassin must really be badly maintained.
Actually, it's pretty well maintained
Everyone can fake the X-Mailer header so that it contains the
identification of a genuine mail program.
Hello Mica,
%COMMENT=This is The Bat!, (wo)man. :tbflag: Accept this fact, leave
this message alone (virgo intacta) and live in peace.
I think I'm going to do something like that. Great Idea! :-)
But I doubt that anyone could talk effectively with an administrator, or
even anti-spam
Hello Robin,
Well, so am I. But to prevent possible problems such as you encounter, I
disguise my mailer slightly - see my X-mailer header. Actually, I use
one of a list of 21 equivalents to The Bat! in a variety of languages.
But that is still like hiding part of my identity and I don't see
Hello Alexander,
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:03:08 +0100 GMT (19/02/2005, 16:03 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
ASK Everyone can fake the X-Mailer header so that it contains the
ASK identification of a genuine mail program. The spam I get claims to be (or
ASK is) written with Microsoft Outlook
Hello Thomas Fernandez everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 13:53 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote:
The faked X-Mailer a spam software created was a TB version, but there
was another header in those mails that wold be created only by Outlook,
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal. That's how the faked X-Mailer
Hello Alexander,
Saturday, February 19, 2005, 3:08:08 PM, you wrote:
ASK The
ASK point is that a totally legit message created with TB v3.0.2.10 or 3.0.1.33
ASK will get a spam rating from SA because of the wrong FORGED_MUA_THEBAT
ASK problem, so I'm back to my statement that they shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just few thoughts about anti-spam strategy, before I forget it...
Cringely, Info World http://www.infoworld.com:
BEGINNING
Filter This:
Spam may be annoying, but spam filters may prove a bigger problem.
Dozens of readers have contributed terms to
Hello Mica Mijatovic everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote:
Filter against what you *accept*/receive,
not against what you do *not*. (-:
Isn't that exactly what you do when you train a(ny) Bayes filter?
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ
Hi
On Friday 18 February 2005 at 8:54:23 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Calvarese
wrote:
My only real issue with buying it is that I need to use it on 2
PCs. my work PC (for personal email) and my home PC (for the
same). But I'm only ever going to be signing on one at a time.
As far as
Hi
On Friday 18 February 2005 at 8:02:16 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander S. Kunz
wrote:
Let's see how it behaves regarding the sig delimiter.
I think you would have to inline sign, not PGP/MIME for the sig
delimiter to be affected.
Much better if you ask me, because its PGP/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 19 Feb 2005,
@ @ at 20:11:40 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
Hello Mica Mijatovic everyone else,
on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote:
Filter against
11 matches
Mail list logo
