On 2/13/2012 10:51 AM, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > --On 13 February 2012 10:17:21 -0600 Noel Jones > <njo...@megan.vbhcs.org> wrote: > >> And if you mangle the Received: header, you should rename it to >> X-Received: to keep spam scanners from penalizing you for an invalid >> header. > > I'm not 100% convinced that is the right approach. If I send mail > to the final MTA without a Received: header on at all (i.e. only > an X-Received: header), I think it might get penalised because of that. > It looks like it's come from an MUA. I think I might be better making > it appear that it has come from 127.0.0.1, i.e. > > Received: from [10.10.10.10] (10-10-10-10.example.com [10.10.10.10]) > by mail.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D74CF456E001; > Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:40 +0000 (GMT) > > turns into: > > Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mail.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D74CF456E001; > Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:35:40 +0000 (GMT) >
I'll certainly agree that when you start mucking with Received: headers (even with good reason) you open a can of worms. Different spam scanners use different criteria to decide what's "bad" and sometimes those rules conflict with each other, putting you in a "can't win" situation. > I note that gmail appears to insert a Received: line with out > a "from" element, so I can't imagine any penalty will be significant. I wasn't aware of that. Maybe I'll examine the RFC more closely and see if that is specifically allowed. -- Noel Jones
