On 12/10/14, 3:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Peter Volkov:
? ??, 10/12/2014 ? 14:35 -0500, Wietse Venema ?????:
Peter Volkov:
We use smtplib in python to send mail through postfix. As I saw from
tcpdump smtplib does not set "Date:" field, so I suspect postfix does
that. Now, as I see postfix sets date as:
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 05:40:50 -0800 (PST)
The (PST) is a comment. Surely, their parser understands how comments
work.
Thanks Wietse! This helped me to understand what CFWS in rfc stands for.
Looks like some spam filter is too strict so I've reported this issue to
their postmaster.
Thanks. For posteriority, the date-time is defined as:
date-time = [ day-of-week "," ] date time [CFWS]
date = day month year
time = time-of-day zone
CFWS = (1*([FWS] comment) [FWS]) / FWS
Source: RFC 2822 and RFC 5322. I omitted some rules for brevity.
If the filter does not allow comments, then it is not too strict,
instead it fails to implement part of the standard.
Wietse
Minor nit, SPAM filters really don't determine compliance to the
standards, they determine the likelihood of a message being
"undesirable". If being 100% compliant to the RFCs made a message immune
to being detected as spam, then there would suddenly be a LOT of 100%
compliant messages being sent out as spam.
If someone has evidence (or even just have convinced themselves) that
the inclusion of a "Time Zone" comment in the date field is a good
predictor of a message being spam, then they will make such
determinations, and reject such message.
Spam blocking breaks some of the principles of the RFC in reliable
message delivery because people don't WANT those messages reliably
delivered, and for some strange reason the spammers aren't doing things
to clearly mark there messages as spam.
--
Richard Damon
