No, hits=-10.1 required=7.0
	tests=FOR_FREE,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,PGP_SIGNATURE,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT
	version=2.40-cvs

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 04:17:55PM -0400, Sven Willenberger wrote:
> To see all the options compiled into (and version of) sendmail, try the
> following line:
>=20
> echo \$Z | /path/to/sendmail -bt -d0
gives you the same information as "sendmail -d0.1 < /dev/null", which
doesn't include milter information.  (actually the -d0 part gives you the
info, the $Z gives you sendmail version out of the test mode (-bt)... so
it's slightly different, but not really.)
--=20
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Be warned that typing \fBkillall \fIname\fP may not have the desired
effect on non-Linux systems, especially when done by a privileged user.
(From the killall manual page)

Is this old bits? It should be.
I was browsing the local zine store here in Portland OR and found the
second issue of The Thresher...very very sweet. Poltical socio articles on
all manner of things from names you have come to love/despise over the
years. If you have not already, tombobjoewhore says check it out.
www.thethresher.com

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F65B16F17
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 10:56:15 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:56:15 +0100 (IST)
from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9881MK06181 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:01:22 +0100
No, hits=-1020.7 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50
	version=2.50-cvs
From rssfeeds@jmason.org  Tue Oct  8 10:56:15 2002

No, hits=-8.0 required=7.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT_PINE
	version=2.40-cvs

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Robert Harley wrote:
--]It's an amusing anecdote, I don't know if it's true or not, but certainly
--]nothing here supports the authoritative sounding conclusion "Status: False".
--]
So thats the trick, just let any anecdotal utterances you LIKE be deemed
true until proven false, and then hold other data to the opposite
standard...
Yeah, I see how that could be a handy tool RH.
(before teh lablemongers are out and about, I could give a shit what
BubbaU utters, its all shite. Kill your idols folks, your slips are
showing)
-tom
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork