[antispam-f] Re: Rule hitting 50% of spam
- From: Dave Barnett <as10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:42:31 GMT
In a recent message Harriet Bazley
<lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here's an example of a perfectly genuine reply I received last month
> (arrived at the ISP without Message-ID *or* References headers....)
> Presumably Microsoft's 'Thread-Index' header is supposed to be a substitute?
>
[snip quoted headers]
RFC2822 is supposed to be the 'standard' to follow. I have tried to
pick out the bits that apply here. They all have the status 'SHOULD'
:-( 'MUST' would have been much better. I find these exercises heavy
going.
Section 3.6.4 states:
Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and
"References:" fields as appropriate, [...]
There is no mention of 'Thread-Index' but you can add almost any
header you like. It does, however, have a "In-Reply-To:" field. The
"Message-ID:" is added by the sender's ISP, this implies that the
original message did not have one, or that the replier's mailer did
not forward it.
The universal get-out appears later:
"If the parent has none of the "References:", "In-Reply-To:", or
"Message-ID:" fields, then the new message will have no "References:"
field."
It does appear that Mucky$oft is applying their Not-Invented-Here
rule. How they can claim to be fighting malware and spam if they make
up ever changing rules as they go along, I do not know :-( It seems
that 'Spammers Rule OK'.
--
Dave
Keep GMT all year
Other related posts:
