X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Sep 13 12:01:50 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4f045a880909130228v3dd4fa2dq8683542d6a4cc906@mail.gmail.com>
References: <25890ca0909122059w4729e07cs801a1bb614df9276@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f045a880909130228v3dd4fa2dq8683542d6a4cc906@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:01:43 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0909130301h5a791904t7db7b9c02c5f3e42@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:28, Martin
	<martint20@gmail.com> wrote: > Is saving Loosmark really worth
	undermining Sandstein? > Probably not. But at least we can make the
	point that Loosmark's playing by the rules in the appeal indicates he's
	given a serious thought to what he did wrong, so he has improved. This, 
	in turn, means that he can be pardoned, which, not implying Sandstein
	was in error in topicbanning him, may be more palatable. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb3 (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb3
Subject: Re: [WPM] Russavia and Loosmark
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0076668206946067097=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:28, Martin
	<martint20@gmail.com> wrote: > Is saving Loosmark really worth
	undermining Sandstein? > Probably not. But at least we can make the
	point that Loosmark's playing by the rules in the appeal indicates he's
	given a serious thought to what he did wrong, so he has improved. This,
	in turn, means that he can be pardoned, which, not implying Sandstein
	was in error in topicbanning him, may be more palatable. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============0076668206946067097==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636283c44e3b7bd047372a227

--001636283c44e3b7bd047372a227
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:28, Martin <martint20@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is saving Loosmark really worth undermining Sandstein?
>

Probably not.  But at least we can make the point that Loosmark's playing by
the rules in the appeal indicates he's given a serious thought to what he
did wrong, so he has improved.  This, in turn, means that he can be
pardoned, which, not implying Sandstein was in error in topicbanning him,
may be more palatable.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--001636283c44e3b7bd047372a227
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:28, Martin <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:martint20@gmail.com">martint20@gmail.com</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Is saving Loosmark really worth undermining Sandstein?<br></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>Probably not. =C2=A0But at least we can make the point that=
 Loosmark&#39;s playing by the rules in the appeal indicates he&#39;s given=
 a serious thought to what he did wrong, so he has improved. =C2=A0This, in=
 turn, means that he can be pardoned, which, not implying Sandstein was in =
error in topicbanning him, may be more palatable.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636283c44e3b7bd047372a227--


--===============0076668206946067097==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============0076668206946067097==--


