* Re: *****SPAM***** p-o-m for kernel]
2002-10-23 2:54 ` *****SPAM***** p-o-m for kernel] Amy
@ 2002-10-23 16:32 ` Patty O'Furniture
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Patty O'Furniture @ 2002-10-23 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: amyyang; +Cc: netfilter
On 23 Oct, Amy wrote:
| sorry for I post this on the list.And say sorry to Erick. [...]
|
| Regards,
| Amy
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Erik Leupold" <spam@cs-el.sytes.net>
| To: <amyyang@w-ibeda.com>
| Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 7:43 AM
| Subject: [Fwd: *****SPAM***** p-o-m for kernel]
|
|
| > your mail is rated as spam
| >
| > --
| > Erik Leupold <spam@cs-el.sytes.net>
| >
Amy,
If you look at the link below, you'll see how your original post
appears in the archive.
https://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter/2002-October/039425.html
Mail filters will be processing what you see above, and not what you
think you wrote. You would probably be better off posting in plain text
without the encoding. Honestly I don't know how to do that when you're
using a different character set (GB2312). I especially know nothing
about how to do it with Outlook Express. But most likely, Erik's spam
filters consider *anything* encoded to be obfuscated spam, or possibly
it took exception to some "bad" words embedded in the encoding.
Although if either of the above is correct one could argue:
1. That filter is brain-dead, and
2. Auto-responding to (suspected) spam is ill-advised, and
3. It is as ill-conceived as vacation msgs responding to list msgs [*],
there's little you can do other than avoiding the encoding. Or you
could just choose to ignore it.
[*] At least it didn't go back to the list.
--
Email address is a temporary one that will only work for a couple of days.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this... reluctantly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread