Well, thanks a lot, I got puzzled with sa_tag, sa_tag2 and sa_kill_level, but I figured it out about an hour ago. My mistake, I had sa_tag2 and sa_kill_level at the same value. Right now my servers are rjecting everything above 10, as I wanted, and tagging and forwarding everything between 5 and 10. Thanks again. I'll stay on the list, so I can learn more from other messages. Luis 2007/3/5

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1567958778== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C71485.904782C0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C71485.904782C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, For some reason I'm getting slow response of

> From: Sulu <DontEmailThisCrewMemberSulu.20.S...@spamgourmet.com> If you send email to N CC'd peopled and the N people have M different filter strategies that require the receiving MTA to wait until the end of data. Where N could be medium/large but M is small, correct? The way forward is to temporary reject all bar 1 group, for now. At the end of data make permanent decision for

Martijn Lievaart <m@remove.this.part.rtij.nl> said in news:pan.2006.11.23.22.30.52.143804@remove.this.part.rtij.nl: On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:05:22 +0000, Marvin Glenn, ASNN wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:19:27 -0800, James W Anderson wrote: Enough people who 550 M$/Hotmail/MSN with that reason spelled out in the reject. It's gonna take collateral damage to cause a change.

vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) said in news:ejib46$2qqs$1@calcite.rhyolite.com: In article <12lp9phhk1nhc91@corp.supernews.com>, Chris Lewis <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote: The only thing that the code really needs to convey (to the MTA) is "this reject code may contain a URL where the sender can take care of this problem themself, so get it to them so