On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:50 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Rex Dieter rdieter@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.