> Regarding "Message-ID header" - factually, over 80% of all spam > (I have not bothered to do the actual number check, it is probably closer > to 99.99% but I am erring on the side of caution - as this is science > and not opinion, it is what it is) > > - All contain a Message-ID header.
You're saying that most spam messages contain a Message-ID header. This is not in conflict with what vjs wrote: > Among the 399 messages sent toward v...@rhyolite.com in the last 24 > hours (usual weekend decrease), 43 or more than 10% lacked Message-ID > headers. For fun, I looked at all 43 and found only the single false > positive, for a false positive rate of 0.023%, which is both not bad > and 10X or 100X higher (worse) than usual. so he's saying that most messages without a Message-ID header is spam. >From my own statistics, I'd have to agree - lack of a Message-ID header is indeed a strong predictor of spam. Steinar Haug, AS2116 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
