On 28/01/2011 4:13 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
letely valid
don't you think? It's invalid HTML and contains no content.
Yes, I agree.
All HTML/XHTML tags are required to close (XHTML is supposed to be more
strict, as it was intended to follow XML structure moreso), but only the
ones I mentioned
Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
OT: I am curious to know why the W3C Validator considers p/ to be
valid, when it goes against every bit of documentation from them I've
ever read.
It also thinks these are fine:
div/
a/
li/
td/
script type=/
style type=/
fieldset/
legend/
See
Good morning everyone (almost the week-end),
Is X-IronPort-AV added by SA, or from something else (DCC Clamav ? )
I just noticed that all email from a certain company was flagged with
X-IronPort-AV, and I wonder why this is so.
I have searched on the usual engine, and saw refereces
On 28/01/2011 10:02, J4K wrote:
Good morning everyone (almost the week-end),
Is X-IronPort-AV added by SA, or from something else (DCC Clamav ? )
I just noticed that all email from a certain company was flagged with
X-IronPort-AV, and I wonder why this is so.
I have searched on the
On 28/01/2011 10:11, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 28/01/2011 10:02, J4K wrote:
Good morning everyone (almost the week-end),
Is X-IronPort-AV added by SA, or from something else (DCC Clamav
? )
I just noticed that all email from a certain company was flagged with
X-IronPort-AV, and I wonder
On 28/01/2011 5:28 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
script type=/
style type=/
fieldset/
legend/
Sounds like it doesn't care whether the actual tag can be shorthand or
not. It just looks at the structure and decides they're valid, even
though HTML and XHTML specifications say otherwise.
- Lawrence
On 01/28/2011 10:13 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 28/01/2011 10:11, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 28/01/2011 10:02, J4K wrote:
Good morning everyone (almost the week-end),
Is X-IronPort-AV added by SA, or from something else (DCC
Clamav ? )
I just noticed that all email from a certain
Problem solved.
Am 27.01.2011 07:11, schrieb John Adams:
Hi
When executing sa-learn --force-expire sa-learn seems to hang here:
Jan 27 06:41:12.665 [9762] dbg: bayes: found bayes db version 3
Jan 27 06:41:12.667 [9762] dbg: bayes: Using userid: 1
Jan 27 06:41:12.671 [9762] dbg: config: score
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, John Adams wrote:
Problem solved.
For the benefit of others searching the archives in the future, how?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 --
Am 28.01.2011 15:25, schrieb John Hardin:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, John Adams wrote:
Problem solved.
For the benefit of others searching the archives in the future, how?
the reason for the hanging was the mysql db. Top permanently showed an
iowait load of ~50% on a quad core machine.
On 28/01/11 15:13, John Adams wrote:
Am 28.01.2011 16:07, schrieb Dominic Benson:
On 28/01/11 14:56, John Adams wrote:
I would suspect that over the life of the DB your tables got quite
fragmented. That would explain why the expire worked fine when you
restored to a clean DB.
I've added an
Hi -
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to sa-learn
--ham.
The thinking here is that users would generally want to receive mail
that they send, and many messages will either be replies or replied to,
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Benson domi...@lenny.cus.org wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
sa-learn --ham.
I haven't seen any mention of this strategy on-list or on the
On 28/01/2011 2:53 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Bensondomi...@lenny.cus.org wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
sa-learn --ham.
I haven't seen any
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:39, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote:
On 28/01/2011 2:53 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Bensondomi...@lenny.cus.org wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +
Dominic Benson domi...@lenny.cus.org wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to
sa-learn --ham.
I haven't seen
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:10:08 +, Dominic Benson domi...@lenny.cus.org
wrote:
The approach, if anyone is interested, is to use an unseen Exim router
to pipe mail to sa-learn --ham using the pipe transport, on the
condition that an acl_m variable, set for authenticated users in
I looked at a few messages and didn't see any reply-to: header.
When I click reply on someone's message here it I am replying to them
only since they're obviously the sender.
Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
by the listserv?
Adam Moffett wrote:
I looked at a few messages and didn't see any reply-to: header.
When I click reply on someone's message here it I am replying to them
only since they're obviously the sender.
Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
by the listserv?
(Here we
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:00:02 -0500, Adam Moffett adamli...@plexicomm.net
wrote:
Is there any particular reason there can't be a reply-to: header added
by the listserv?
no its a mua problem to use list-post header when replying
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 18:10 +, Dominic Benson wrote:
Recently, in order to balance the ham/spam ratio given to sa-learn, I
have started to pass mail submitted by authenticated users to sa-learn
--ham.
The thinking here is that users would generally want to receive mail
that they send,
wish there was an easy 'link' somewhere on RP's system to report spam
from people in the 'safe senders' list.
RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE
anyone who gets a 'free -2 point pass' should be held accountable.
I said this the last time we had hard-to-follow bogus whitelisting
debate, but I think SA
On 1/28/11 8:21 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I said this the last time we had hard-to-follow bogus whitelisting
debate, but I think SA needs a policy statement about any DNSWL which
gets negative points. Specifically, there needs to be a really obvious
way to complain*by sending email* (not a web
23 matches
Mail list logo
