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 i
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 a
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
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
___
-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 ;)
Ah, but one from me!
T
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 fr
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 X-MS-Pri
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 s
-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 X-
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 S
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 PR
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 o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nick,
@21 July 2002, 15:16 -0700 (23:16 UK time) Nick Andriash [NA] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to TBUDL:
>> I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
>> ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think
-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 do
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 M
-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,
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
_
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
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
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 re
-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 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:
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 po
23 matches
Mail list logo
