Hello Lynn,
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:09:20 -0700 GMT (27/07/02, 02:09 +0700 GMT),
Lynn Turriff wrote:
However, I never understood who (apart from spammers) would need
the mass mailing feature and am not surprised that Ritlabs
apparently linked to spammer sites until recently.
LT I subscribe
On Friday, July 26, 2002, Thomas wrote:
I vote for continuing this thread on TBOT rather than offlist.
This thread seems to me to be very on-topic. Not being able to send
email to someone is an important problem for TB users.
--
PFord
The Bat! 1.60h (reg)
Windows 98 4.10 Build
On Friday, July 26, 2002, Allie C Martin wrote:
Only your poor recipient will be affected by such a move. I'd just
change the mailer header until the recipient can sort out the
problem by persuading his ISP into changing their policy or moving
to another ISP.
A recipient not using TB isn't
Hello Paula,
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:00:27 -0400 GMT (28/07/02, 00:00 +0700 GMT),
PFord wrote:
P If the X-mailer value is the problem, why doen't RIT Labs just remove
P it? Isn't it optional in a header?
Yes, X-Mailer is optional. All X-headers are optional, and most other
MUA-generated ones as
Hi Thomas,
on Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:30:19 +0700GMT (27.07.02, 19:30 +0200GMT here),
you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
TF Actually, what I am currently thinking is that the functionality of
TF Xray should be integrated into TB. - Is that feasible? Hmm.
Might be. Very good
Saturday, July 27, 2002, 4:02:54 AM, you wrote:
TF Thanks to you and all the people that have given examples of how
TF they
TF use the mass mailing feature without being spammers. I've
TF learned that
TF there is quite a legitimate use for the feature. I might even
TF look
TF into it myself.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Jonathan,
@26 July 2002, 15:56 -0500 (21:56 UK time) Jonathan Angliss [JA] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Greg
Strong:
Now I'll probably get flamed. Just stating my own humble opinion. :)
JA No flame from me ;)
moderator
Ah, but one from
Quoting Marck D Pearlstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Douglas,
@21 July 2002, 16:59 -0500 (22:59 UK time) Douglas Hinds [DH] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Carren Stuart:
CS I have never received *any* spam from anyone
The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any indication
abut filteringg TheBat!
For the moment one of them find this:
http://www.kr.freebsd.org/internal/spam/header_checks
If I understood exactly this is the spam filter
Hi Alberto,
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, at 23:12:34 [GMT +0200] (22:12 where I live) you wrote:
AA The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
AA Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any indication
AA abut filteringg TheBat!
AA For the moment one of them find this:
AA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, 22 July 2002 at 9:12 a.m. Alberto wrote:
AA The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
AA Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any
AA indication abut filteringg TheBat! For the moment one of them find
AA this:
AA
Hi Carren,
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, at 09:15:27 [GMT +1200] (22:15 where I live) you wrote:
CS I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
CS ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think OE is the pits, don't
CS stoop to these levels!
CS I have never
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:17:47 +0100GMT (21/07/2002,
23.17 +0100GMT),
Adam Rykala wrote:
AA If I understood exactly this is the spam filter policy of a korean
AA user group.
Oh the irony..
:-)
The only good think is that if we know the problem we can solve: is
not
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:24:56 +0100GMT (21/07/2002,
23.24 +0100GMT),
Adam Rykala wrote:
Well I haven't had a single message bounced or refused yet while using the Bat
and I've got a few thousand under my belt.
The fact that the rest of us haven't noticed before is proof enough of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Douglas,
@21 July 2002, 16:59 -0500 (22:59 UK time) Douglas Hinds [DH] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Carren Stuart:
CS I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
DH I have.
You should all (not just Douglas)
Hello Carren Stuart,
In Reference to your Posting on Sunday, July 21 2002 at 02:15 PM PDT,
I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think OE is the pits, don't
stoop to these levels!
It is probably because TB has the Mass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, 22 July 2002 at 9:59 a.m. Douglas wrote:
CS I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
DH I have.
CS and I can't imagine that anyone using it would use it for
CS spamming purposes.
DH A better class of spammer, no doubt.
Sunday, July 21, 2002, 3:38:03 PM, Alberto wrote:
AA :-)
AA The only good think is that if we know the problem we can solve: is
AA not possible to contact every ISP and ML service to avoid TheBat!
AA filtering but as we know that some of them use this stupid policy we
AA can understand why one
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 5:10:59 PM, N. Sean Timm wrote:
NST Since we can't eliminate all of the stupid people, this just means we
NST need a new feature from The Bat!...X-Mailer header modification... :)
No... just a good hex editor?;-)
Artmailto:[EMAIL
Hello Carren,
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 4:15:27 PM, you wrote:
CS I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
I have.
CS and I can't imagine that anyone using it would use it for
CS spamming purposes.
A better class of spammer, no doubt.
DH
Hello Marck,
Marck wrote:
MDP ... I've seen spam come through with The Bat! (1.52f)
MDP Business as the X-Mailer and an X-MS-Priority header.
*Is* there a TB! Business version? I DO recall seeing that on the
spam I saw with TB! mentioned as the mailer in the header.
MDP Advanced Mass Sender
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Douglas,
@22 July 2002, 19:25 -0500 (01:25 UK time) Douglas Hinds [DH] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck D
Pearlstone:
MDP ... I've seen spam come through with The Bat! (1.52f) Business
MDP as the X-Mailer and an
Hello Marck,
you wrote:
MDP If you get a spam that has this header:
MDP X-Mailer: The Bat! (1.52f) Business
MDP it, incongruously will also have an X-MS-Priority header. TB only
MDP uses X-Priority.
Only six of the 21 spam messages lack X-MSMail-Priority and none of
them are hard core spam.
Sunday, July 21, 2002, 6:34:34 PM, you wrote:
DH Only six of the 21 spam messages lack X-MSMail-Priority and none
DH of
DH them are hard core spam. They're spam for insurance or vacations
DH or
DH something equally innocuous. The nastiest ones all have the
DH X-MSMail-Priority or
24 matches
Mail list logo
