Am 07.10.2014 um 01:38 schrieb John Hardin:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the listit is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to dropThose are very stupid filters then.Huh? How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to the end user?
he just thinks everybody out there study his mailheaders or even have the knowledge to do so and write perfect filters by the headers while that assumption is naive - that said, restart the thread once again after 3 days is questionable to say it polite - if all people would be that perfect they would not need the list
P.S.:it was your "Re: [SPAM] Re: False positive in rule: FUZZY_XPILL" i refered implicitly as i started that thread - mayb eyou can make clear that the [SPAM] part was not your personal prefix for the SA list as LuKreme repeatly pretends instead just accept the hint instead make a stink
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
