[TriLUG] OT - wolves are circling the sheep

[Mike Mueller]

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 07:03, Magnus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 12:28  PM, Mike Mueller wrote:
> > X-Spam-Flag: YES
> > X-Spam-Report: *  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message *
> > 0.5 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML *  1.9 WEIRD_PORT URI:
> > Uses non-standard port number for HTTP *  0.2 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI:
> > Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL *  3.1 USERPASS URI: URL
> > contains username and (optional) password
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.7 required=5.0
> > tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,USERPASS,WEIRD_PORT
> > autolearn=no version=2.60
> > X-Spam-Level: *****
>
> Ironically, you've got several aspects to your mail that is flagging it
> as spam.  Many people with TriLUG mail accounts will never even see
> your post.

The message was not 40-50% HTML.  The other spam report stuff seems accurate. 
Such is the state of things today - talking about spam is spam.  That's like 
putting the police in jail because they talk about criminal behavior.  Don't 
take my comments wrongly, I think the tight filtering is useful.  It's not so 
good when you discover important email is encoded in HTML and it's not a 
situation where you can tell the buffoon to stop. 

I guess I could have explained the URL in a way to circumvent the filter.  I 
could have sent a clean  pre-message announcing the upcoming arrival of the 
spam-like message.  Would it work to substitute angle brackets with 
paranthesis and "(at)" for "@"?  Any suggestions?
-- 
Mike Mueller
324881 (08/20/2003)
Make clockwise circles with your right foot. 
Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air.