Back to the topic of the email, would Friday work for a triage meeting? Maybe late morning on the US East Coast so not to be too late in Europe/Africa?
-walter On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Cunningham <rvskmbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am sorry for trying to threaten a user who, as it turns out, sent a > message that was not of an unsolicited nature. > > Such threat will now be reversed. > > Thank you for the patience to tell me about this issue. > >> On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Jerry Vonau <m...@jvonau.ca> wrote: >> >> Let's analyze why this email was flagged as spam with an eye to helping >> instead of a blanket "I'll report you". >> >>> On January 11, 2015 at 11:39 AM Ryan Cunningham <rvskmbr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The message you have sent appears to be spam: >>> >>>> X-Spam-Flag: YES >>>> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.9 required=3.5 tests=DEAR_SOMETHING, >> >> So the total is above the threshold, which is made up of: >> >> * 1.6 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals >> >> Using ALL CAPS in the subject line, 1.6 >> Please use proper case here, the use of ALL CAPS is considered to be >> shouting also. >> >>>> * 0.2 FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT Reply-To freemail username ends in >>>> digit * (ifeanyi peter <ifeanyipeter42[at]yahoo.com> ) >>>> * 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username >>>> ends >>>> in * digit (ifeanyipeter42[at]yahoo.com) >> >> 0.4 for having digits in the email addresses. >> >>>> * 1.7 DEAR_SOMETHING BODY: Contains 'Dear (something)' >> >> I'm not sure if I agree with such a high rating for being polite with the >> use of "Dear..." but together with the above ratings puts this email over >> the required=3.5 threshold. >> >>>> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message >>>> * 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid >>>> X-Spam-Level: *** >>>> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on >>>> sunjammer.sugarlabs.org <http://sunjammer.sugarlabs.org/> >>> I’m sorry to tell you this, but junk mail messages are not accepted on >>> the Sugar Labs development mailing list. >>> >> >> Think the subject line is what put this email over the spam limit. That is >> easy to fix by the sender. >> Nothing below I would consider as spam, no html, url links, ads, just a >> request for a meeting. >> >>> If you continue posting to this mailing list, you may be reported to the >>> Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) of the U.S. Department of Justice’s >>> Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National White Collar Crime >>> Center. >>> >> >> Some of the new developers may not have much experience with what amounts >> to business correspondence and may need a bit of guidance in the best >> practices. What a great way to scare off eager new developers, threats of >> the FBI being involved. >> >>>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Ifeanyi Peter <ifeanyipete...@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sir, >>>> >>>> A proposal to do a triage meeting with suggestions below: >>>> >>>> 1) Wrapping up loose ends before the sugar 104 release and the end of >>>> GCI >>>> >>>> 2) To block off a 3-hour window >>>> >>>> Thank you as my proposal is considerable granted timely. >>>> >>>> kind regards, >>>> Ifeanyi Matthew >>>> >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Jerry > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel