[antispam-f] Re: missing headers
- From: Jeremy Nicoll - freelists <jn.flists.73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:12:19 +0100
Richard Porter <ricp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is a strange one. I've been receiving some spam messages along
> the same lines, which were not marked by PlusNet. All got defaulted by
> AntiSpam and marked as Spam by SpamStamp. However the last one had no
> headers except those added by AntiSpam and SpamStamp:
What about the message immediately before this one in the logs - has it had
this one's headers in its body text?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> X-AntiSpam-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:45:57 +0100
> X-AntiSpam-Action: default
> We are looking for a highly motivated professional, with skill of
> working with people. The position is home-based. We offer a part-time
> position with flexible working hours. And we would be happy to
> consider a full-time job share applicant.
>
> The right person will have good consultation and interpersonal skills
> and some knowledge of advertising. Candidates must be able to keep on
> focused and motivated when working alone.
> Spam: Yes
> SpamScore: 100.00%
It's odd that these two added headers are after the body. I'd have thought
that the code that added these would have looked for the expected blank line
between headers & body, and if it did, why didn't it add these three or four
lines earlier? Is the gap between "applicant." and "The right" not actually
a blank line?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The backup file in MsgServe is identical except for the #! rmail
> 0000530 line. The first part of the message body is also missing.
Missing from where? How do you know what is missing? Do you actually have
a copy (from somewhere else?) of what the whole message should look like? If
so wouldn't it be better to share it?
>
> The AntiSpam ISP log looks OK with all the headers present
Do you mean all the headers from THIS message, or from prior ones? If mean
THIS message, how do you expect anyone to tell what's gone wrong if you
don't share them with us?
> but more than the ten requested body lines.
Well, what's in the more-than-ten lines?
> I don't know where else to look, but it seems that AntiSpam has chopped
> the message because its headers are present.
You mean, perhaps, that: it seems because its headers are present that
AntiSpam has chopped ... (slightly different implication...).
--
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own
Other related posts:
