Sunday, July 21, 2002, 6:34:34 PM, you wrote:
DH> Only six of the 21 spam messages lack X-MSMail-Priority and none
DH> of
DH> them are hard core spam. They're spam for insurance or vacations
DH> or
DH> something equally innocuous. The nastiest ones all have the
DH> X-MSMail-Priority or X-MS-Pri
Hello Marck,
you wrote:
MDP> If you get a spam that has this header:
MDP> X-Mailer: The Bat! (1.52f) Business
MDP> it, incongruously will also have an "X-MS-Priority" header. TB only
MDP> uses X-Priority.
Only six of the 21 spam messages lack X-MSMail-Priority and none of
them are hard core s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Douglas,
@22 July 2002, 19:25 -0500 (01:25 UK time) Douglas Hinds [DH] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck D
Pearlstone:
MDP>> ... I've seen spam come through with "The Bat! (1.52f) Business"
MDP>> as the X-Mailer and an X-
Hello Marck,
Marck wrote:
MDP> ... I've seen spam come through with "The Bat! (1.52f)
MDP> Business" as the X-Mailer and an X-MS-Priority header.
*Is* there a TB! "Business" version? I DO recall seeing that on the
spam I saw with TB! mentioned as the mailer in the header.
MDP> Advanced Mass S
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 5:10:59 PM, N. Sean Timm wrote:
NST> Since we can't eliminate all of the stupid people, this just means we
NST> need a new feature from The Bat!...X-Mailer header modification... :)
No... just a good hex editor?;-)
Artmailto:[EMAIL PR
Sunday, July 21, 2002, 3:38:03 PM, Alberto wrote:
AA> :-)
AA> The only good think is that if we know the problem we can solve: is
AA> not possible to contact every ISP and ML service to avoid TheBat!
AA> filtering but as we know that some of them use this stupid policy we
AA> can understand why o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nick,
@21 July 2002, 15:16 -0700 (23:16 UK time) Nick Andriash [NA] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to TBUDL:
>> I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
>> ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, 22 July 2002 at 9:59 a.m. Douglas wrote:
CS>> I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
DH> I have.
CS>> and I can't imagine that anyone using it would use it for
CS>> spamming purposes.
DH> A better class of spammer, no do
Hello Carren Stuart,
In Reference to your Posting on Sunday, July 21 2002 at 02:15 PM PDT,
> I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
> ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think OE is the pits, don't
> stoop to these levels!
It is probably because TB has the Mass M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Douglas,
@21 July 2002, 16:59 -0500 (22:59 UK time) Douglas Hinds [DH] in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Carren Stuart:
CS>> I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
DH> I have.
You should all (not just Douglas)
Hello Carren,
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 4:15:27 PM, you wrote:
CS> I have never received *any* spam from anyone using TB!
I have.
CS> and I can't imagine that anyone using it would use it for
CS> spamming purposes.
A better class of spammer, no doubt.
DH
_
Hello Julian,
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 2:49:11 PM, you wrote:
JBL> What I would like is an addition in the log file for the
JBL> account to say that x messages were deleted without downloading
JBL> - at the moment, it only tells me the number of messages on the
JBL> server, the number of new
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:24:56 +0100GMT (21/07/2002,
23.24 +0100GMT),
Adam Rykala wrote:
> Well I haven't had a single message bounced or refused yet while using the Bat
> and I've got a few thousand under my belt.
> The fact that the rest of us haven't noticed before is proof enough of the
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:17:47 +0100GMT (21/07/2002,
23.17 +0100GMT),
Adam Rykala wrote:
AA>> If I understood exactly this is the spam filter policy of a korean
AA>> user group.
> Oh the irony..
:-)
The only good think is that if we know the problem we can solve: is
Hi Carren,
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, at 09:15:27 [GMT +1200] (22:15 where I live) you wrote:
CS> I can't believe this! This kind of filtering on email client is
CS> ridiculous. Geez even those of us who think OE is the pits, don't
CS> stoop to these levels!
CS> I have never re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, 22 July 2002 at 9:12 a.m. Alberto wrote:
AA> The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
AA> Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any
AA> indication abut filteringg TheBat! For the moment one of them find
AA> this:
AA
Hi Alberto,
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, at 23:12:34 [GMT +0200] (22:12 where I live) you wrote:
AA> The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
AA> Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any indication
AA> abut filteringg TheBat!
AA> For the moment one of them find this:
The problem seems to be bigger than I supposed.
Some of the italian user are looking around to finde any indication
abut filteringg TheBat!
For the moment one of them find this:
http://www.kr.freebsd.org/internal/spam/header_checks
If I understood exactly this is the spam filter po
On Sunday, July 21, 2002, 7:21:29 PM, Douglas Hinds wrote:
> Use the Mail Dispatcher. Any message containing the string and
> string location you indicated for selective download will have the
> Receive box unchecked and (if you've set "delete from server
> immediately") will have the Delete box
Hi David,
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, at 19:48:49 [GMT +0100] (19:48 where I live) you wrote:
DE> Hi Adam
DE> On 21 July 2002 at 19:12:29 +0100 (which was 19:12 where I live) Adam Rykala
DE> graced us with these comments
DE> < ... >
>> ...electronic mail sent to a large number of recipients
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Adam
On 21 July 2002 at 19:12:29 +0100 (which was 19:12 where I live) Adam Rykala
graced us with these comments
< ... >
> ...electronic mail sent to a large number of recipients
define [a large number of recipients]
Is it 10, 100, 1000. Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
