On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:50 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote: >> > On 01/25/2010 09:28 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote: >> >> A number of people have been telling me for some time >> >> (months if not years) that my email is being defined as spam. >> >> [This is email that could not by any stretch of the imagination >> >> be considered as spam, even by the thought-police.] >> > >> > That's not a simple question to answer. ?The complex part is that each >> > ISP generally has it's own mechanisms and sets of rule on how/why to >> > label spam. >> > >> > But I can tell you what's contained in the header of this message you >> > just posted, >> > >> > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on >> > ? ? ? ?bastion2.fedora.phx.redhat.com >> > X-Spam-Level: IIIIIII (7%) >> > X-Spam-Status: No >> > >> > So, this one in particular, isn't bad. >> >> Gmail things all his emails are bad. This one had the warning: >> "Warning: This message may not be from whom it claims to be." > > Not here it doesn't. I get the list via Gmail, including Timothy's > posts, and none of it is marked as suspicious. Interesting, the only reason I get any of his posts is because of a filter I put in. Either way, the email headers suggests why his emails are considered spam. -- Fedora 11 (www.pembo13.com)
