On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Michael J Wise <mjwise(_at_)kapu(_dot_)net> wrote:
Trevor Jenkins wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Michael J Wise <mjwise(_at_)kapu(_dot_)net> wrote:
Why?
Because several LISTSERV-based lists that I'm on are configured to
"prettify" the Subject and other header lines so that every thing lines
up. Personally I think it "uglyifies".
I'd concur with your assessment, but if you filter on the Return-Path...
More often than not, it's SpamSign. Really.
From above no.
I disagree, and have the stats to back it up.
I know I've already commented upon this but I thought a few examples of
non-munged Subject: lines from non-spam messages might help understanding.
These are snarfed from my mbox rather than using my mailer. The first one
is what started my quest; it's a subtle one.
Subject: spelling diagonal angle
Subject: [CO-CURE] RES: Muramyl and MGN3 trials
Subject: [CO-CURE] RES: Complementary and alternative therapies for
fibromyalgia
Subject: sign language processing and computational sign language
linguistics
as you can see all "prettyified" by LISTSERV but this is my all time
favourite:
Subject: [CO-CURE] RES: CFS - Increased sensitivity to glucocorticoids in
peripheral
blood mononuclear cells
Without removing extraneous spaces my Subject: munging receipe would
produce things like this
Subject: [SignWriting] Sandra's question: Writing ASL classifiers
Subject: [LifeLines] book-latex.ll: Latex 2.09 or 2e?
None of these mailing lists are spam. Actually the only list I've had spam
via has been the gcc developers list---ironic given the lengths that the
owners go to to prevent spam.
Regards, Trevor
British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living language.
Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now!
--
<>< Re: deemed!
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail