Jim Maul wrote:
The subject is not changed if there is no subject. This is a feature,
not a bug.
-Jim
Just out of curiosity, what benefit is provided by this feature?
-tom
Jim Maul wrote:
Also, i dont see how it would break alphabetical sorting any more than
mail
clients inserting Re: before the subject.
All I have to test with here is Outlook, Outlook Express, and Mozilla
Thunderbird. They all ignore RE: and FWD: when sorting by subject.
They don't ignore [L
Bret Miller wrote:
Having a simple prefix in the subject line makes life a lot
easier.
Precisely *how* does it make life "easier"?
It makes life easier if you stuff a few related lists into a single
mailbox.
I don't get it. I only have the one mailbox and a dozen lists, and they
s
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Michele Neylon::Blacknight Solutions wrote:
Hear hear. By the way, the list is run on mailman, so it's definitely
possible.
Nope. EZMLM.
Did someone HAVE a good reason for why it's not happening? I can live
with a four-character longer subj
Predrag Lezaic wrote:
Would it be possible to have emails to this list have something such
as "[SA-LIST} Subject here" in the subject line for easier sorting of
the emails in folders? This is actually the first list am using that
doesn't have anything unique in the subject.
This has been discu
Max wrote:
Hi
This is a header of a mail sent via Lotus Notes and I noticed no false
positives from Lotus Notes
I running Spamassassin 2.63 with some ruleset from SARE and Amavisd-new
/ Max
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 tagged_above=-50.0 re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the most part and I'd say 99.999 (maybe add more 9's)% of the
time, the SPF result is "None". You can't do anything effective with
that.
On average, you'll need to receive more than 100,000 emails to receive
ONE from a domain with an SPF record? Impossible. You g
Don't use the To: address field, use the List-Id if your MUA can do it:
List-Id: "SpamAssassin Users" users@spamassassin.apache.org
Oh, pooh.
Timely (or perhaps prescient?) question, it seems they're coming across
as List-ID: now.
Mike Burger wrote:
The problem, however, is that SPF's usability also relies on MX records.
In my case, I have 2 MX records, and my SPF record is set up thusly:
"v=spf1 a mx -all"
Essentially saying that all my MX records are valid senders, as well.
All the spammer has to do is list those server
Robert Nicholson wrote:
So far I have
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Trying to filter all mail to this list.
Howdy Robert,
Does your mail client allow you to filter on the headers? I use
List-ID: contains the string [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-tom
Don Saklad wrote:
Thank you for the information folks !
Have any of you nice folks any further information or references that
would be of any use to people using emacs rmail with no mastery of
computers trying to see what they can do with the spamassassin headers
set up for them on the system by te
Don Saklad wrote:
Here's the original question that did not get through !...
http://zork.net/~dsaklad/usabilityspamassassin.html
Are you aware that no question actually appears anywhere on that page?
It seems like it's perhaps a statement of frustration.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-qu
Chris Santerre wrote:
Is MIT teaching a course in useless sarcasim now? Both of your responses do
nothing to help this conversation.
Next time Bob might just answer RTFM, instead of actually trying to help
you.
http://www.stormloader.com/saklad/
Don is um... probably not looking for an answer. H
Theodore Heise wrote:
This seems counterintuitive to me, based on my understanding of
probability and statistics (which is admitedly just enough to be
dangerous). Is this a result of some interaction? For example a
message that meets BAYES_99 is also more likely to trigger some
network tests, so
14 matches
Mail list logo
