-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I assume the content filter did not like the words 'for sale' which were part
of the subject line of a running thread of which the message in question below
was a response. That would seem to be a false positive.
Policy changes such as content filtering should be openly and completely
discussed before being implemented. It is my current understanding that the
message in question (which ironically [or perhaps not ;| ] enough concerned
such a policy consideration) was delivered, despite the 'Action = Delete'
below.
That message started with the line:
'Responding to a request is not spam, as spam is by definition unsolicited.'
Installing a content filter mid-thread in the dark of night without notice let
alone discussion seems unacceptable. Especially given the fact that there is
no spam problem on the list to begin with.
- ------- Start of forwarded message -------
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: System Attendant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Tom Farrow'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t
aken.
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:47:21 -0800
Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
Place = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ; ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender = Tom Farrow
Subject = Re: [SOCALWUG] Posting to the List. Grid- Parabolic for sale
Delivery Time = February 27, 2003 (Thursday) 02:47:21
Policy = Spam phrases
Action on this mail = Delete message
Warning message from administrator:
Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.
- ------- End of forwarded message -------
- --
Tom Farrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024D/38F56384 04B6DBF6448BB3AECE99 BBEB1286954738F56384
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE+Xf5zEoaVRzj1Y4QRAlW+AJ0cqCbLB1VWsqlt53eOkVfa9+1uYwCeOJla
fl/SXvJuaRDy/dm4v6heBT0=
=tJy8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
