RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test

2005-02-12 Thread Marc Catuogno
: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test YOU may want to chang your config to use weightrange instean of weight. It will difinitivly choose the actio that will happen and avoid confusion. Why was this message held anyway. Based on the failed tests I would not hold this message on our server

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test

2005-02-12 Thread Dave Doherty
@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test YOU may want to chang your config to use weightrange instean of weight. It will difinitivly choose the actio that will happen and avoid confusion. Why was this message held anyway. Based on the failed tests I would not hold

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test

2005-02-10 Thread Dave Doherty
Hi Marc- I saw NOABUSE, ROUTING, and SPAMHEADERS today with my personal statement from AMEX, which came from the same sender. SPAMHEADERS reports that the sender was bad. -d - Original Message - From: Marc Catuogno [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Sent: Thursday,

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] AMEX fails routing test

2005-02-10 Thread Kevin Bilbee
YOU may want to chang your config to use weightrange instean of weight. It will difinitivly choose the actio that will happen and avoid confusion. Why was this message held anyway. Based on the failed tests I would not hold this message on our server. I do not know what filter does. But I would