Re: {SPAM?} Important! Please don't delete.

Re: {SPAM?} Important! Please don't delete.

[Duncan Sinclair]

Hi,

Did someone say the spam problem had been fixed???


Duncan.


On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 03:16  am, <mn90o@aol.com> wrote:

> Hey Friend,
>
> You may have seen this business before and ignored it. I know I did - 
> many times! However...

Re: {SPAM?} Important! Please don't delete.

[Mads Martin Joergensen]

* Duncan Sinclair <sinclair@dis.strath.ac.uk> [Jan 30. 2003 22:51]:
> Hi,
> 
> Did someone say the spam problem had been fixed???

Yes. A spam problem being fixed does not necessarily mean that 100% of
the spam is gone. These lists have no spam problem anymore. If you're
that sensitive you would probably have to start learning how to
spamfilter yourself.

-- 
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                -- A. P. J.

Re: {SPAM?} Important! Please don't delete.

[Duncan Sinclair]

Hi,

On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 01:35  am, Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:

> * Duncan Sinclair <sinclair@dis.strath.ac.uk> [Jan 30. 2003 22:51]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Did someone say the spam problem had been fixed???
>
> Yes. A spam problem being fixed does not necessarily mean that 100% of
> the spam is gone. These lists have no spam problem anymore. If you're
> that sensitive you would probably have to start learning how to
> spamfilter yourself.

I do have a spam filter - SpamAssassin put the "{SPAM?}" into the 
subject of the original message for me.

SpamAssassin scored the message at 23.5, almost 5 times the score of 5 
it needs to flag the message as spam.

X-Spamcheck: SpamAssassin (score=23.5, required 5, AS_SEEN_ON, 
BULK_EMAIL, CASHCASHCASH, COPY_ACCURATELY, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, 
FINANCIAL, FREE_MONEY, INITIAL_INVEST, JODY, LINES_OF_YELLING, 
LINES_OF_YELLING_2, LINES_OF_YELLING_3, MLM, NOT_INTENDED, 
NO_REAL_NAME, ONLY_COST, OPT_IN, PARA_A_2_C_OF_1618, READ_TO_END, 
RISK_FREE, SECTION_301, SENT_IN_COMPLIANCE, SPAM_PHRASE_21_34, 
SUPERLONG_LINE, USER_AGENT_OE)

So I couldn't help wondering why sunsite.dk's spam filter thought the 
message was OK...

Sorry for the noise...

Cheers,


Duncan.