On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Can you ask the sender to generate samples? No sensitive content, and
> > the email address most likely can be masked by you. Just be sure to not
> > invalide any other data. Might require sending at different ti
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:43 +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> > Sorry for the ranting. I didn't mean to insult Raymond or anyone else
> > knowing the problem but not providing samples.
>
> I didnt take it up as a insult or anything. I just confirmed this is a
> generic issue, next time i'll be s
On 22-May-2009, at 03:25, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
If anyone wants to file a bug go ahead. I wont since people seem to
like loosing regular mail, lets leave it in.
Ah, the old "I'd rather whine than do anything" gambit. Good luck
with that.
--
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral sh
Hi!
Honestly, I am sure I don't know /all/ he does for the community.
To submit a bug of that type, you need to have access to samples, and
per policy, he may not.
He dumped it on others to provide the evidence, in "Raymondish"
wording... but trust me, he's more that OK.
Sorry for the rant
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 13:31 +0200, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 5/22/2009 1:19 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Awesome attitude, thank you very much!
> Seems you don't know Raymond is and what he does for "the community",
> pretty silently :-)
Honestly, I am sure I don't know /all/ he does
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:54 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one particular
(legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the rule it's
difficult to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Hmm, sounds fam
On 5/22/2009 1:19 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 11:25 +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
There are new versions out that hit this rule and it should not. [...]
If anyone wants to file a bug go ahead. I wont since people seem to like
loosing regular mail, lets leave it in.
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 11:25 +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> There are new versions out that hit this rule and it should not. [...]
> If anyone wants to file a bug go ahead. I wont since people seem to like
> loosing regular mail, lets leave it in.
Awesome attitude, thank you very much!
So th
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
What i dont understand, i mean, i did the exact same thing. Why isnt
it either removed from SA Update or downscored???
to downscore on you your box, just add the lower score to your local.cf
and restart spamd/amavisd.
as to why SA doesn't do it? don't know.
--
Hi!
Hmm, sounds familiar.
we got so many that we set the score to 0.001 maybe a year ago.. I thinks
it a combination of outlook xp and exchange 2003+
What i dont understand, i mean, i did the exact same thing. Why isnt it
either removed from SA Update or downscored???
Because for many p
On May 22, 2009, at 3:00, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one
particular (legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the
rule it's difficult to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
we got so many that w
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 11:00 +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> > we got so many that we set the score to 0.001 maybe a year ago.. I thinks
> > it
> > a combination of outlook xp and exchange 2003+
>
> What i dont understand, i mean, i did the exact same thing. Why isnt it
> either removed from
Hi!
I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one particular
(legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the rule it's difficult
to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
we got so many that we set the score to 0.001 maybe a year ago.. I think
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:54 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one particular
(legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the rule it's
difficult to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Hmm,
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:54 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one particular
> (legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the rule it's
> difficult to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Hmm, sounds familiar.
> Unfortunate
Hi,
I'm seeing regular FPs against FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK from one particular
(legitimate) sender, and not really understanding the rule it's
difficult to understand why or how to go about fixing it.
Unfortunately I'm not in a position to openly post copies to the net, so
wondered if I could be
16 matches
Mail list logo
