On Wednesday 29 October 2003 07:03, Magnus wrote: > On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 12:28 PM, Mike Mueller wrote: > > X-Spam-Flag: YES > > X-Spam-Report: * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * > > 0.5 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML * 1.9 WEIRD_PORT URI: > > Uses non-standard port number for HTTP * 0.2 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: > > Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 3.1 USERPASS URI: URL > > contains username and (optional) password > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0 > > tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,USERPASS,WEIRD_PORT > > autolearn=no version=2.60 > > X-Spam-Level: ***** > > Ironically, you've got several aspects to your mail that is flagging it > as spam. Many people with TriLUG mail accounts will never even see > your post.
The message was not 40-50% HTML. The other spam report stuff seems accurate. Such is the state of things today - talking about spam is spam. That's like putting the police in jail because they talk about criminal behavior. Don't take my comments wrongly, I think the tight filtering is useful. It's not so good when you discover important email is encoded in HTML and it's not a situation where you can tell the buffoon to stop. I guess I could have explained the URL in a way to circumvent the filter. I could have sent a clean pre-message announcing the upcoming arrival of the spam-like message. Would it work to substitute angle brackets with paranthesis and "(at)" for "@"? Any suggestions? -- Mike Mueller 324881 (08/20/2003) Make clockwise circles with your right foot. Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air. -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
