 |
 |
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