A few days ago I mentioned that I've had to reduce the weight I give to the spamdomains test drastically due to false positives. Here is an example of the type of thing I am running into:
Received: from picturecd3.kodak.com [192.232.121.230] by netinteraction.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.13) id A1136D2013E; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:27:47 -0700 Received: from picturecd.kodak.com ([207.160.143.56]) by picturecd3.kodak.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h7B1Kwn15568 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <snip> X-RBL-Warning: SPAMDOMAINS: Spamdomain 'hotmail.com' found: Address of [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent from invalid picturecd3.kodak.com. This was some photos that someone sent a client. That leaves me with a frustrating choice. I can either fish these out of hold every time somebody does this, or I can reduce the weight precisely for a domain that that really can benefit from the spamdomains test. Again, this isn't a criticism. I just wanted to show what is happening in the "real world". Paul Navarre --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
