On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:50 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)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.