maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks like
it has been sent by this mailinglist.
--
best regards
Arvid Ephraim Picciani
--- Begin Message ---
Attn: webmail Subscriber:
This mail is to inform all our webmail Subscriber that would will be
upgrading our site i
Arvid Ephraim Picciani writes:
> maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks like
> it has been sent by this mailinglist.
yeah, sorry about that. I accidentally moderated it through.
I assume subscribers to the SpamAssassin users list know that it's
spam, though ;)
On 15.08.08 13:16, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks like
> it has been sent by this mailinglist.
yes, it was. I wonder if someone bounces it here or if it was really
directed here...
Content-Description: "WEB-MAILTEAMS" <[EMA
Hi!
maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks like
it has been sent by this mailinglist.
yeah, sorry about that. I accidentally moderated it through.
I assume subscribers to the SpamAssassin users list know that it's
spam, though ;)
ROFL ... SA list, of all p
I assume subscribers to the SpamAssassin users list know that it's
spam, though ;)
Unfortunately it didn't score that high:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=1.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 autolearn=no
version=3.2.5
Sort of related, occasionally some messages on the list get so many
points t
Greg Troxel wrote:
Sort of related, occasionally some messages on the list get so many
points that my MTA rejects them (score > 10). I'd like to not do that,
since it seems rude to the list (although ezmlm seems to not really
care). I'm guessing that I need a custom rule to assign negative poin
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Greg Troxel wrote:
Sort of related, occasionally some messages on the list get so many
points that my MTA rejects them (score > 10).
I looked on the wiki, and haven't found pre-cooked rules for this.
Is there any reason the base rules should _not_ contain a
whitelist_fro
On 8/15/08 at 8:07 AM -0700 John Hardin wrote:
>Is there any reason the base rules should _not_ contain a
>whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd for the list?
Would you really want to auto-train your bayes with mail from this list?
Nedry
John Hardin wrote:
> Is there any reason the base rules should _not_ contain a
> whitelist_from_spf or whitelist_from_rcvd for the list?
Larry Nedry wrote:
> Would you really want to auto-train your bayes with mail from this list?
The whitelist rules are ignored when SpamAssassin decides whether
Justin Mason wrote:
Arvid Ephraim Picciani writes:
maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks like
it has been sent by this mailinglist.
yeah, sorry about that. I accidentally moderated it through.
I assume subscribers to the SpamAssassin users list know that it'
mouss writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > Arvid Ephraim Picciani writes:
> >> maybe i'm missinterpreting the headers, but this message actually looks
> >> like
> >> it has been sent by this mailinglist.
> >
> > yeah, sorry about that. I accidentally moderated it through.
> >
> > I assume subscr
11 matches
Mail list logo