Received: from localhost ([::1]:35083 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UPb9Z-0000fc-BA; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:12:13 -0700 Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com ([209.85.220.182]:36743) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UPb9R-0000fV-Po for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:12:10 -0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ht10so686464vcb.13 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Fv5UlJln5N3EhvOmPJ7qIE/O1qRn4VMAQgQ6rEmTXsA=; b=fkvye/Pi4Fjo3Ia7gY9mdmIAzO5oCp2AuKwl6RvcoriTxBPjzvNSULvY+N2xp0ckb1 HSsGlF/ZamrxieADVB0lHBr83VfzbFFqrST9yk/AAoCR00QG6U6L/ZymDOdz7WmJrZ4x egTDyMqhAPxKPStG1+BdUv4hDjolHUEAHUbJGtT4eg+1MX9ugkRxdgQ3d1i3nZk7uRDk oHpUhPDOg4KpqDZnZYp7UyDCyOz1yvsSl/44gTl09nSphMHd31DH8r2AAbOu32Ru+D/s 8xBBylFW/RE5Mubga9hW721t8V7s39H0y2S1Zf7zqzzelfxPNdLkKCOaZidNkW3MvStj xCVw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.106.14 with SMTP id v14mr19719536vco.2.1365523919281; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.230.69 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:11:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Eitan Postavsky To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.2 X-Spam_score_int: 2 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 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: Yeah, probably. Not nice to have a rafsi in the cmene category. On 4/9/13, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/vob > > definitely this article is about rafsi. > well, can we edit official definition of vo'a in order to add this -vob- > rafsi to it? Then this article should be removed. > > .i pei > [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (eitanp32[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (eitanp32[at]gmail.com) -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] should the seperate article for a rafsi be removed? X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org Yeah, probably. Not nice to have a rafsi in the cmene category. On 4/9/13, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/vob > > definitely this article is about rafsi. > well, can we edit official definition of vo'a in order to add this -vob- > rafsi to it? Then this article should be removed. > > .i pei > _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste