Charles Marcus wrote:
>> I agree with you Charles. It must be. For future posts, I'm curious as
>> to which headers you would have wanted to see.
>>
>
> Like I said - the FULL headers. When discussing message delivery issues
> of a specific message, without the full headers one can only speculate.
>
>
>> I try to keep my posts as small as possible.
>>
>
> In general, this is a good thing - but sometimes more is needed.
>
>
>> Should I always post full headers even if some of the headers aren't
>>
> > relevant?
>
> Do you really want me to answer that? ;)
>
> The best answer is, if you are unsure enough to have to ask, then what
> you may think is irrelevant, may, in fact, not be (irrelevant, that
> is)... ;)
>
Understood. Here's the full headers of the first email.
>From - Mon Feb 26 20:13:59 2007
X-Account-Key: account3
X-UIDL: 146392
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cp20.com ([127.0.0.1])
by fait.homeip.net
with hMailServer ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:57:39 -0500
Received: from mail.cp20.com ([216.24.225.10] helo=mail.cp20.com) by
ASSP.nospam; 26 Feb 2007 19:57:28 -0401
Received: by mail.cp20.com id hse0uc0cgt0g for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 26 Feb
2007 19:45:29 -0500 (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:45:29 -0500
Bounces-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Campaign: 22322/32619/17992425
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Bass Player Magazine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [spam] Bass Player E-News, February 26, 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_1856966163.1172537100076"
X-Assp-Delay: delayed for 11m 40s; 26 Feb 2007 19:57:28 -0401
X-Assp-Received-SPF: pass (ASSP.nospam: domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
designates 216.24.225.10 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.24.225.10;
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
helo=mail.cp20.com;
X-Assp-Received-RBL: pass
X-Assp-Bayes-Confidence: 0.00000
X-Assp-Spam-Prob: 1.00000
X-Assp-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Assp-Intended-For: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Assp-Spam: YES
X-Assp-Spam-Reason: Bayesian Check: spam
And the second. This is the correction.
>From - Mon Feb 26 20:18:59 2007
X-Account-Key: account3
X-UIDL: 146403
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from ASSP.nospam ([127.0.0.1])
by fait.homeip.net
with hMailServer ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:14:39 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: ASSP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Not-Spam report: Bass Player E-News, February 26, 2007
X-Assp-Report: YES
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:14:39 -0401
Again, I've checked and double checked my main computer, which has
Thunderbird installed and I'm typing this in. I've also checked my mail
server here at the house that is running hMail and ASSP. They both have
the same time and the same time zone. Notice in the first one this line....
Received: from mail.cp20.com ([216.24.225.10] helo=mail.cp20.com) by
ASSP.nospam; 26 Feb 2007 19:57:28 -0401
That isn't me with the wrong time because I'm not mail.cp20.com?
And my ASSP correction being sent back...
with hMailServer ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:14:39 -0500
is correct. but yet...
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:14:39 -0401
So is this a configuration problem on my part, a bug in ASSP, or is it
getting that time from the original email that had 0401 (which is a
weird time zone to begin with.)
BTW, to all who are reading and have replied to my many emails.. Your
support is really really appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Assp-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
