RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question

2002-09-27 Thread Jim Rooth
] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance out on your own...LOL Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop again Jim

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question

2002-09-26 Thread Jim Rooth
I do it by a weight system. Thee are a few of the tests that really have less value in catching legitimate spam. For instance if you give a heavy weight to noabuse, you will not receive any mail from Microsoft as they do not want the emails telling them they are screwing up so therefore they do

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question

2002-09-26 Thread R. Scott Perry
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests and it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the occasional legitimate email from badly formatted clients. For example, JunkMail caught a confirmation email from an online service that one of my co-workers

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question

2002-09-26 Thread John Tolmachoff
Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance out on your own...LOL Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop again Jim. The diesel fumes are getting to you again. :-) John