Karsten Br=E4ckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 18:04 -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> =20
>> Of course, now that I've used the word "whore" three times and quoted =

it
>> once I'm sure I'll get a deluge of bounces (not rejects) from people
>> running Microsoft's Antigen for SMTP.
>>
>> http://daryl.dostech.ca/blog/2008/02...-brain-dead-c=

ontent-filter/
>> =20

>
> Yes!
>
> There's at least one user on this list, somewhere behind an MS Antigen
> for SMTP, apparently run by psp.com (thank you, Sony), which has been
> bugging me a couple times already when answering questions. The OP dare=

d
> to munge private email addresses:
>
> Filter name: "KEYWORD=3D spam: xxx "
>
> I would not have expected anyone on *this* list to run such a stupid
> single-word content "filter". But hey, the subscriber is unlikely to ge=

t
> a lot of traffic from this list anyway passed beyond that wall...
>
> I'm curious to see the reason for /dev/null'ing this mail and instead
> send out a useless and annoying note. Which one will win the race, whor=

e
> or triple x?
>
> guenther
>
> =20

Blocking is one thing, but scoring is another. Aren't single words=20
defined in many rules for spamassassin? I know "fsck"
and "v%%gra" are which are not part of a meta rule. I do agree, however,=20
anything M$ does is stupid.