|
Tim Barney wrote:
>Ah. I see now. Thanks.
>BTW, your reply to me did not go to the list; you may want to resend
>it to NAG to
>re-assert the original question.
Yep, forgot to do Reply All again, darn. Thanks.
-- dkm
>David McFarlane wrote:
>>Tim,
>>
>>>David McFarlane wrote:
>>>>Brian,
>>>>
>>>>>Beginning today, we turned spam processing on for all incoming
>>>>>email. That is to say all email that passes through our MX
>>>>>boxes. This it touched upon in our FAQ for the new mail.msu.edu
>>>>>here: http://techbase.msu.edu/article.asp?id=10902#s46349
>>>>>
>>>>>What you are seeing is merely a "Spam Report" As I said, every
>>>>>single solitary message that goes through mx##.mail.msu.edu will
>>>>>get processed for it, regardless of if it is spam or not. If it
>>>>>is spam... it will be marked as such ***** SPAM *****
>>>>>
>>>>>We feel the "Spam Report" is a useful tool when it comes time
>>>>>for troubleshooting.
>>>>Thanks. So, from now on "every single solitary message" will be
>>>>labelled as "possible spam", regardless of its spam score? And I
>>>>will have to scroll past the lengthy boilerplate of the
>>>>uninformative "Spam Report" before I can read any of my actual
>>>>messages? And I and other users will learn to just ignore the
>>>>"Spam Report" because of all the false positives?
>>>
>>>sorry for the lengthy re-quote, but
>>>Brian said "every single solitary message" will be processed for
>>>spam content, not that "every single solitary message" will be marked as spam.
>>
>>Thanks. But the question was why non-spam got labelled as
>>"possible spam", and I thought Brian's reply was meant to address
>>that question, so I guess I misread his reply. So then my original
>>question remains unanswered, and I post it again in full in case
>>someone (even Brian) wants to take another stab at it:
>>
>>"OK, what's going on? First a post from Victor Lounds, and then
>>one from Lee Duynslager labelled as "possible spam" (see copied
>>header below), and I suspect this is just the beginning. Did we
>>change something to the campus spam filter to create a bunch of
>>false positves, or do we just have a rash of users coincidentaly
>>sending messages that look like spam?"
>>
>>-- dkm
|
