> I think the problem lies in just this snippet:
>
> >> X-SMTP-Auth-NETI-Businesmail: no
> >> Received: from ...mada30 (xx.175.190.90.dyn.estpak.ee [xx.190.175.78])
> >>by Relayhost2.neti.ee (Postfix) with SMTP id CE2621F9E65
> >>for <.@online.ee>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:29:07 +0200 (EET)
Rops wrote on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:04:37 -0800 (PST):
> Subject: Re: ***SPAM***
This was *not* tagged as spam. This is a reply to your reply to a spam-
tagged message where you didn't remove the tag. Or a reply to your message
that got tagged on the *other* side (and without removal of the tag).
Hi Roberta,
I think the problem lies in just this snippet:
>> X-SMTP-Auth-NETI-Businesmail: no
>> Received: from ...mada30 (xx.175.190.90.dyn.estpak.ee [xx.190.175.78])
>> by Relayhost2.neti.ee (Postfix) with SMTP id CE2621F9E65
>> for <.@online.ee>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:29:07 +0200
I pretty much get the impression, we're not talking about the same. That
is, mail server admins versus a general user.
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 17:00 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Rops wrote:
> > May it be the result of outgoing and incoming servers being the same??
> > (mail.net
7 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C91D14.766AEC40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wwird-flagging-of-emails-to-Spam-tp21574031p21575209.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Rops wrote:
What means Outlook shoudn't send directly to MX?
It means that rather than having your Outlook mail client directly contact
the mail servers (MX hosts) at, say, Microsoft, you should instead send
your email via the mail servers at your ISP and have *them* rel
At 04:41 PM 1/20/2009, you wrote:
and thanks for a multitude of replies.
Isn't there any weblist with these abbreviations explanation with some
simple samples?
Google's a good starting point. So is spamassassin.org
What means Outlook shoudn't send directly to MX?
Not to be rude, but if you
*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0;
> }}}
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wwird-flagging-of-emails-to-Spam-tp21574031p21575013.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
pams. Is it ISP to blame and punish with blacklisting, if there may be some
bots working?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wwird-flagging-of-emails-to-Spam-tp21574031p21574973.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 16:08 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Karsten Brckelmann wrote:
>
> > All in all, your problem is that your mail client (is it really
> > Outlook?) is sending mail directly to the MX. Instead, you should be
> > using your ISPs SMTP.
>
> Were these indeed mes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Karsten Br?ckelmann wrote:
All in all, your problem is that your mail client (is it really
Outlook?) is sending mail directly to the MX. Instead, you should be
using your ISPs SMTP.
Were these indeed messages sent by the OP? I don't recall seeing that in
his post (which I
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 00:55 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:27 -0800, Rops wrote:
> > available to find out what means DOS_OE_TO_MX_IMAGE=3
>
> The message has been generated by Outlook (or claims to be), has been
> sent directly from the client (MUA), Outlook, t
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 15:27 -0800, Rops wrote:
> Message 1.
> From a decent mail header, there is following entry, but there is no source
> available to find out what means DOS_OE_TO_MX_IMAGE=3
The message has been generated by Outlook (or claims to be), has been
sent directly from the clien
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Rops wrote:
I have been surfing around for a while to find out why a lot of mails
are considered spam by my ISP, when these aren't.
How much do you think is reasonable level to flag as spam?
The default is 5, and all the base rules are scored with that threshold in
mind
ot by spamassassin.
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at estpak.ee
X-Spam-Score: 1.047
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.047 tagged_above=1 required=4.91
tests=[BAYES_00=-1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wwird-flagging
anned: amavisd-new at estpak.ee
X-Spam-Score: 1.047
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.047 tagged_above=1 required=4.91
tests=[BAYES_00=-1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wwird-flagging-of-emails-to-Spam-tp21574031p
16 matches
Mail list logo
