Re: Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new?

2019-10-30 Thread RW
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:45:56 +0100 Antony Stone wrote: > On Wednesday 30 October 2019 at 20:23:37, RW wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:09:11 -0400 > > > > Mark London wrote: > > > Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new? I see it hitting real emails >

Re: Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new?

2019-10-30 Thread Antony Stone
On Wednesday 30 October 2019 at 20:23:37, RW wrote: > On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:09:11 -0400 > > Mark London wrote: > > Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new? I see it hitting real emails > > here, but hitting no spam emails. Thanks. > > It's one of several rules based

Re: Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new?

2019-10-30 Thread RW
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:09:11 -0400 Mark London wrote: > Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new? I see it hitting real emails > here, but hitting no spam emails. Thanks. It's one of several rules based on __PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL, which is looking for To headers that look like this: T

Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new?

2019-10-30 Thread Mark London
Is PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT new? I see it hitting real emails here, but hitting no spam emails. Thanks. - Mark Sent from my iPhone