]
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 a
>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 To
Perry
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
>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
oc
>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-work
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 d
