Hi Annalivia,
At 03:22 AM 09-04-2018, Annalivia Ford wrote:
I've been tasked with finding out what the
general consensus is on the support in email
headers for International characters such
as UTF-8 Charcacters and including things like
accented characters like é and å and can also
include A
> On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:27, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop
> wrote:
>
>
> According to RFC 2822, text in () represents comment (see section 3.2.3) and
> is used in the place where RFC2821 allows CFWS. CWFS is allowed to contain a
> comment (it's what differs FWS from CFWS).
>
> So, while t
I was specifically talking about querying a DNSBL with possible-forged IP
addresses, not creating new listings or anything else.
That wasn't clear.
Anyway, you normally only look up the IP of the gateway host that sent the
mail from their network to yours. Relays before that are often from h
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:19:02 -0400, Al Iverson
wrote:
>It blacklists an unrelated party, is my point. Not only is it unfair,
>but it makes for pretty useless and sloppy spam fighting.
My personal experience is that, even if no listing occurs, there will be time
wasted responding to "screaming pi
> On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:24, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article you write:
>> Am I missing a case where there is a negative outcome to a legitimate,
>> by-the-book sender?
>
> Spammer forges header with address of unrelated network, that network
> gets listed even though it has never sent spam
According to RFC 2822, text in () represents comment (see section 3.2.3)
and is used in the place where RFC2821 allows CFWS. CWFS is allowed to
contain a comment (it's what differs FWS from CFWS).
So, while this format is not optimal for automated parsing, it does not
violate RFCs.
19.04.2018 0:
In article you write:
>Am I missing a case where there is a negative outcome to a legitimate,
>by-the-book sender?
Spammer forges header with address of unrelated network, that network
gets listed even though it has never sent spam and has no relation to
the spammer.
R's,
John
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Dave Warren wrote:
> Am I missing a case where there is a negative outcome to a legitimate,
> by-the-book sender?
Yes.
It would be like if I started adding a faked received header to my
spam (if I were a spammer) that always included a reference to your
outbound
