Is there a reason why people are still posting to the old list address? I thought the new address was:
[email protected] Ryan On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 11:34, Chris Santerre wrote: > greping a quick phrase or word, vs running the masscheck againt the actual > rule. > > Can have different outcomes. > > grep -c force\.com > > will hit more then running against a rule like > > URI I_AM_PUDDING /\bforce\.com\b/i > > Simple example, but I think it explains it. > > --Chris > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Daulton, Douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:12 AM > >To: Robert Menschel > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: NOSEND IMG Attribute in HTML Email > > > > > >Thanks Bob. > > > >Could you elaborate on what a corpus scan is vs. a mass-check. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Doug Daulton > >Email Systems Manager > >Email Marketing | Graphic Arts > >MGM MIRAGE Advertising, Inc. > >www.mgmmirage.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:12 PM > >To: Daulton, Douglas > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: NOSEND IMG Attribute in HTML Email > > > >Hello Douglas, > > > >Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 12:02:54 PM, you wrote: > > > >DD> I've been researching the NOSEND attribute of IMG tags. > >The results > > > >DD> have been mixed and can be found at the following URL. > > > >DD> http://www.emailcrew.com/index.php?p=10 > > > >DD> Does anyone else have something to add? Is NOSEND a SPAM negative > >DD> or positive SPAM flag? What purpose does it actually serve? > > > >Quick corpus scan (not a proper mass-check) for "nosend=" gives 21 ham > >and 26 spam. Therefore not a useful flag one way or the other here. > > > >Bob Menschel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
