Pete,
Our subscribers can forward spam they receive to our [EMAIL PROTECTED]
address, which gets forwarded to you guys. Some spammers have been sending
e-mail messages directly to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address (cutting out the
middle men I guess). One spammer, www. c a s i n o b a r .com, has
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 6:20:40 AM, System wrote:
SA Pete,
SA Our subscribers can forward spam they receive to our [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SA address, which gets forwarded to you guys. Some spammers have been sending
SA e-mail messages directly to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address (cutting out the
on 12/21/04 8:21 AM, Pete McNeil wrote:
The second possibility is that we've skipped the message for some
safety reason (trying to avoid false positives) though it seems
unlikely in this case.
Once I see it I will be able to tell more.
Would adding direct to spam in the subject make these
Hello Sniffer Folks,
Backscatter from rejected virii and joe-jobs has become a very
significant problem.
Up to now we have tried as much as possible to avoid coding for
NDRs and other such backscatter - though some pattern matches have
been unavoidable.
Generally it is a very bad
It sounds good to me, Pete.
May I humbly suggest that this be a new result code, e.g. 046? Until
now, Message Sniffer has been very parsimonious with the new categories,
but this looks like one that will be here for a long time.
Andrew 8)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 12:51:19 PM, Andrew wrote:
CA It sounds good to me, Pete.
CA May I humbly suggest that this be a new result code, e.g. 046? Until
CA now, Message Sniffer has been very parsimonious with the new categories,
CA but this looks like one that will be here for a long
Given that the precision is difficult to assign under the single result
framework, I don't doubt the choice. Might I suggest creating a
sub-group for the three main types of backscatter so that individuals
can turn them off as a group instead of one rule at a time. Note that
the three groups
On Tuesday, December 21, 2004, 1:13:15 PM, Matt wrote:
M Given that the precision is difficult to assign under the single result
M framework, I don't doubt the choice. Might I suggest creating a
M sub-group for the three main types of backscatter so that individuals
M can turn them off as a
FYI,
I'm still debating myself about what to do with this stuff. I'm hoping
that it will go away, albeit slowly, and I presently rarely take action
to correct any issues with this E-mail, though I do reprocess some
individual messages. Seems that many of the C/R providers have gotten
better
