Jeanne Schock wrote:
I am corresponding with Ted. H over at excite.com member services, in the
hope that they can change their blocking criteria. If this is an annoyance
for anyone else, I suggest going to the excite.com website and give a hand
trying to explain the irony of viewing confirmation em
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:28:48 -0700
jsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. But, as I exchange email with a
> minimum wage worker at excite that is doing what he was told to do
> (decision from someone that hasn't got a clue) I still have people
> complaining.
6:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Subject Line Length Considered Spam
jsmith wrote:
>Excite is blocking any subject that has more than 22 characters due to
it
>looking like
>commercial spam. I would bet that other ISP's will be or have already
>started subject l
jsmith wrote:
Excite is blocking any subject that has more than 22 characters due to it
looking like
commercial spam. I would bet that other ISP's will be or have already
started subject line filtering on the length as well.
I am assuming you mean 22 consecutive characters without a
break?
I know it is not terrifically useful to say "me too," but I have some 40
pending subscriptions from excite.com addresses, and not a single new
subscription, over the last 3 days.
I am corresponding with Ted. H over at excite.com member services, in the
hope that they can change their blocking crit
