Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4401DEC32B9 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:05:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from zql.com ([206.222.31.58]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SIPL7-00052g-ED for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:05:55 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost) by zql.com with smtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1SIPKt-0002o2-Ip; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:05:39 -0400 From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Recent spam on general X-PGP-Key: 2529 DF6A B8F7 9407 E944 45B4 BC9B 9067 1496 4AC8 X-Request-PGP: http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:05:39 -0000 X-Mailer: JoyMail 2.4.0 Message-ID: <2569781263e224232166736b89621fa2@biglumber.com> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201204/20 X-Sequence-Number: 20594 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > You're looking at the wrong header. Our spam score gave it 2.1. Which > is still not very much, but a lot better than minus 3.6.. Oops, you are right. I think I have a -5 whitelist for the PG lists, which means it is 2.6, not that far from 2.1. Hardly one of the more disguised spams I've ever seen, so I think everyone should be doing better. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201204121502 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk+HJ3AACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgQkACg8SiO7yyrT5yXkv2a6vp/WpPe DX8An3Jp6svEA+wpxPFiLq3jmWrkhH55 =V5ef -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----