See http://www.spamrats.com/lookup.php?ip=64.4.232.191
Is there something wrong with my headers and if so, how do I correct
it?
thanks
--
Tim
tim at tee jay forty nine dot com or akwebsoft dot com
http://www.akwebsoft.com, http://www.tj49.com
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:18:44PM -0700, j...@howey.io wrote:
Tim Johnson t...@akwebsoft.com wrote:
See http://www.spamrats.com/lookup.php?ip=64.4.232.191
Is there something wrong with my headers and if so, how do I correct
it?
This is related to the ISP or service provider you are
Tim Johnson t...@akwebsoft.com wrote:
See http://www.spamrats.com/lookup.php?ip=64.4.232.191
Is there something wrong with my headers and if so, how do I correct
it?
thanks
--
Tim
tim at tee jay forty nine dot com or akwebsoft dot com
http://www.akwebsoft.com, http://www.tj49.com
David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
After much frustration I discovered why mutt wouldn't work with the
SMIME keys issued at work: there are two of the private keys (one for
signature, one for encryption), and a single public key. As I have an
employer that is more than willing to let me use mutt (if
I'm cleaning up and looking into committing the multiple crypt hook
patch, but need some feedback from people who use it.
The current behavior (without that patch) is to prompt whether to use
the crypt-hook value if one is found. If the user answers no then
Mutt will use the original address for
After much frustration I discovered why mutt wouldn't work with the
SMIME keys issued at work: there are two of the private keys (one for
signature, one for encryption), and a single public key. As I have an
employer that is more than willing to let me use mutt (if I can get it
to work properly)
* Will Yardley mutt-us...@veggiechinese.net [150403 15:12]:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 03:18:44PM -0700, j...@howey.io wrote:
Tim Johnson t...@akwebsoft.com wrote:
See http://www.spamrats.com/lookup.php?ip=64.4.232.191
Is there something wrong with my headers and if so, how do I correct
