That rule sounds suspeciously like one I wrote a long time ago, and once posted
here. If it is, then the problem is probably the double-quoting in the display
name of the To line, or the fact that the display name happens to match the
email address rather than something like "Jonathan Nichols".
Besides, what are you complaining about? That message looks like it was
probably spam from the headers, and this rule is probably all that pushed it
over the limit. :-)
Loren
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Nichols <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Oct 28, 2004 1:33 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: NOT_TO_ME
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: *SPAM* BLM beach land
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:19:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C4BD2B.6D9A2B00"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mailgate.pbp.net
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=6.1 tagged_above=-999.0 required=6.0
tests=BAYES_90,
HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE, NOT_TO_ME
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-Flag: YES
WHat would have triggered the "NOT_TO_ME" rule? I don't understand that
rule very much... :(
