Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-23 Thread Scott Fisher
:55 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 Hi Scott- Would you write the exe in C? I have not found a way to have VB return a result code from an exe. Am I missing something? -d - Original Message - From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-23 Thread Dave Doherty
Thanks, Doug! Is this for VB6 or VB.NET? -d - Original Message - From: Doug Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 vb code to give you a dos error code In your declares use Private

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-23 Thread Dave Doherty
have a grip on is the performance difference between a simple VBS and an exe run thousands of times per minute. -d - Original Message - From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 Doug

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-23 Thread Kevin Bilbee
: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 Thanks, Doug! Is this for VB6 or VB.NET? -d - Original Message - From: Doug Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 vb code to give you a dos error

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-22 Thread Dave Doherty
] Outlook 2003 I have a specific spamheader code that I punish very heavily for one specific spammer. You could use this code and change the spamheader code to the one Outlook generates. If you supply the spamheader code and ask nicely, I could generate an EXE to do it also. global.cfg: HEADER

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-22 Thread Doug Anderson
: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 Hi Scott- Would you write the exe in C? I have not found a way to have VB return a result code from an exe. Am I missing something? -d - Original Message - From: Scott Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20

[Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-20 Thread Kris McElroy
Has anyone found a way to add a negative weight to Outlook 2003 clients for the spamheaders test? I am running into a problem where it is failing the spamheaders test which is causing the weight to go over the and hold the emails? Thanks, Kris McElroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail was

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-20 Thread Rick Davidson
Title Group - - Original Message - From: Kris McElroy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 Has anyone found a way to add a negative weight to Outlook 2003 clients for the spamheaders test? I am running

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003

2004-08-20 Thread Scott Fisher
I have a specific spamheader code that I punish very heavily for one specific spammer. You could use this code and change the spamheader code to the one Outlook generates. If you supply the spamheader code and ask nicely, I could generate an EXE to do it also. global.cfg: HEADER-C040120E

Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 file attachments

2003-10-16 Thread William Baumbach
. 20110-2028 Ph: 703-367-7900 ext:1708 Fax: 703-691-0946 - - Original Message - From: Markus Gufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:54 PM Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 file

[Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 file attachments

2003-10-15 Thread Markus Gufler
This is the list of file extensions that are configured in Outlook 2003 as Level1 (means: file can not be opened or saved to disk) Maybe someone can compare it with his current BANEXT list and add some new extensions. .ade Microsoft Access project extension .adp Microsoft Access project .app

[Declude.JunkMail] Outlook 2003 and external images

2003-10-15 Thread Markus Gufler
As I've seen the default setting in Outlook 2003 for HTML-Mails is to not load and display external images. The user have to right-click and request the image. Can we expect a change in spammer abitudines for the tipical no-text-and-only-images-spams? Markus --- [This E-mail was scanned for