On Thursday, January 20, 2011, 1:31:50 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 4:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> When you sign up for a company's email list, you get whatever they
> decide to send you. If they decide to start sending marketing to the
> list, I would not consider that spam because t
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:31:50 -0500
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> When you sign up for a company's email list, you get whatever they
> decide to send you.
OK. I guess we'll agree to disagree on our definitions, then.
Regards,
David.
On 01/20/2011 11:31 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Public discussion lists are bit different. In that case, it is the
individual post that is being considered spam rather than considering
the list spammy. Since there is no overall control over the content of
the posts, public lists are vulnerable to
On 1/20/2011 4:17 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:12:58 -0500
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. You subscribed to it. If you don't want it anymore,
>> unsubscribe.
> I disagree. When you subscribe to a list, there's an implicit understanding
> of the content you are
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:12:58 -0500
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Of course it is. You subscribed to it. If you don't want it anymore,
> unsubscribe.
I disagree. When you subscribe to a list, there's an implicit understanding
of the content you are signing up for. If the list owner violates the rules
On 1/20/2011 4:10 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:06:31 -1000
> "Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
>
>> Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
>> you subscribed for.
> Not necessarily. You could subscribe to a list expecting it to contain
> useful conten
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:06:31 -1000
"Warren Togami Jr." wrote:
> Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
> you subscribed for.
Not necessarily. You could subscribe to a list expecting it to contain
useful content. A few months later, the organization running the l
On 1/20/2011 7:23 AM, R - elists wrote:
initially this came across as a really suspect idea...
i.e., one man's junk is another man's treasure
Ham is a lot easier to define than Spam. Ham is simply anything that
you subscribed for.
for a moment, it appeared we were gonna need to review t
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:59, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 11:46 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
>>
>> So a couple points:
>>
>> 1. Subscribing to lists opens up lots of grey areas including
>> the above.
>>
>> 2. Some of the areas are very difficult to resolve into spam or
>> ham. Some more a
>
> This is a misunderstanding. I am largely against
> whitelisting or negative score rules. I merely intend to
> increase the variety of legitimate mail in the nightly ham
> corpus so our spam-hostile rules can be better tested for
> safety. This will be interesting especially with non-En
Thank you both for your inputs. Futher prodding has gotten my web hoster to
get the techies involved and they report that they have resolved the
problem. Looking at mail coming in this morning, it appears that they indeed
have corrected the problem. Only valid mail is arriving to my mailboxes. A
s
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:49:56 +0100
J4 wrote:
>
> Good morning to all of you,
>
> This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test
> everything worked after a reboot).
>
> warn: dcc: dccifd -> check skipped: dcc: failed to connect to a
> socket /var/dcc/dccifd: Connection refused
>
On 01/20/2011 12:08 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 1:06 AM, J4 wrote:
>>
>> I had not realised it was in the repos - I just checked and it is. Damn.
>
> I'm surprised it would be in the repos. DCC is not Free Software.
>
> Warren
Me too, but something is listed. Maybe I its something
On 1/20/2011 1:06 AM, J4 wrote:
I had not realised it was in the repos - I just checked and it is. Damn.
I'm surprised it would be in the repos. DCC is not Free Software.
Warren
On 01/20/2011 12:03 PM, J4 wrote:
> On 01/20/2011 11:58 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
>> On 1/20/2011 12:49 AM, J4 wrote:
>>> Good morning to all of you,
>>>
>>> This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test everything
>>> worked after a reboot).
>>>
>>> warn: dcc: dccifd -> check
On 01/20/2011 11:58 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 12:49 AM, J4 wrote:
>>
>> Good morning to all of you,
>>
>> This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test everything
>> worked after a reboot).
>>
>> warn: dcc: dccifd -> check skipped: dcc: failed to connect to a
>>
On 1/20/2011 12:49 AM, J4 wrote:
Good morning to all of you,
This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test everything
worked after a reboot).
warn: dcc: dccifd -> check skipped: dcc: failed to connect to a socket
/var/dcc/dccifd: Connection refused
The socket is there:
srw
Good morning to all of you,
This popped up in the spamd.log after a reboot (done to test everything
worked after a reboot).
warn: dcc: dccifd -> check skipped: dcc: failed to connect to a socket
/var/dcc/dccifd: Connection refused
The socket is there:
srw-rw-rw- 1 dcc spamd 0 Jan 10 09:40 /va
18 matches
Mail list logo
