> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Gilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:15 AM
> To: 'Martin Radford'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Message ID
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Radford
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Martin Radford wrote:
> > > >From my own collections:
> > >
> > >with FQDNwith hostname only
> > > ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
> > > spam: 1925 (76%
Hi Jim,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote:
> > And shouldn't the first received line indicate
> > that the host that sent the message?
>
> Not necessarily,
>
> for example, I use a single copy of Mutt to send mail from
> add
At Tue Aug 26 13:03:59 2003, 'Carlo Wood' wrote:
>
> Ah, damn... there are FOUR types of Message ID's:
>
> Message-id:
> Message-Id:
> Message-ID:
> MessageID:
That bottom one is not a "Message-ID" - there's no hyphen present.
The header is case-insensitive - so "MessaGe-iD" is also possible
(al
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote:
> And shouldn't the first received line indicate
> that the host that sent the message?
Not necessarily,
for example, I use a single copy of Mutt to send mail from address is
several domains. Each outbound message will use the same HE
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me Dave. You probably have
a better understnding than me which helps educate me! I guess this whole
discussion is really moot as mail can easily be forged.
> -Original Message-
> From: Yorkshire Dave
> > I think the problem lies in that t
At Tue Aug 26 13:15:59 2003, 'Carlo Wood' wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Martin Radford wrote:
> > >From my own collections:
> >
> >with FQDNwith hostname only
> > ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
> > spam: 1925 (76%)
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:03, Larry Gilson wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Yorkshire Dave
>
> > I'm not sure that having an @foo or @foo.localdomain
> > message-id actually breaks any standards, although it may bend them
> > slightly.
> >
> > RFC822/2822 seem to refe
Hi Dave,
> -Original Message-
> From: Yorkshire Dave
> I'm not sure that having an @foo or @foo.localdomain
> message-id actually breaks any standards, although it may bend them
> slightly.
>
> RFC822/2822 seem to refer mainly to the uniqueness of the message-id.
> RFC2822(3.6.4) recomm
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 'Carlo Wood' wrote:
> List of mailers of mails with msg-id without domain:
>
> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail)
I haven't looked at the source in a while, but I'm almost certain this is
simply because IRIX's gethostname() doesn't return a FQDN, at least in
that vi
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:44, Larry Gilson wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for your input. I have a better understanding now and agree with
> you. I was headed down the wrong road.
>
> It would be nice to have an @foo.localdomain format. That could be faked
> too just like every other header field.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:03:59PM +0200, 'Carlo Wood' wrote:
> I'll carefully make a new list that I will post later.
Ok, I now did it correctly - using an awk program.
Number of hams: 4548
Number of hams without '^(X-[Mm]ailer|User-Agent):': 1833
Number of Messsage ids with a domain: 4262
List
Good numbers to see Martin. Thanks!
Regards,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Radford
> From my own collections:
>
>with FQDNwith hostname only
> ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
> spam: 1925 (76%) 608 (24%)
>
> While
Dave,
Thanks for your input. I have a better understanding now and agree with
you. I was headed down the wrong road.
It would be nice to have an @foo.localdomain format. That could be faked
too just like every other header field. It would also be difficult to
expect every day dial-up/broadban
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Radford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 6:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Message ID
>
>
> At Tue Aug 26 04:55:01 2003, Larry Gi
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Martin Radford wrote:
> >From my own collections:
>
>with FQDNwith hostname only
> ham: 2331 (85.6%) 391 (14.4%)
> spam: 1925 (76%) 608 (24%)
>
> While I'm not very good with statistics, this ru
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:55:01PM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote:
> Thanks Carlo! Looks like this test would not be good for a relay that
> accepts mail from MUAs. However, it would probably be good if one only
> expects traffic from MTAs - like gateways. I am surprised to see Exchange
> and GroupWi
At Tue Aug 26 04:55:01 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
> Thanks Carlo! Looks like this test would not be good for a relay that
> accepts mail from MUAs. However, it would probably be good if one only
> expects traffic from MTAs - like gateways. I am surprised to see Exchange
> and GroupWise. For E
Larry Gilson writes:
> Is it reasonable to assume that a message ID that is not in the form of
> @some.domain is probably spam. If I remember correctly, there is no real
> restriction on message IDs. In reality, does anyone know of legitimate MUAs
> or MTAs that do not form message IDs as @some.
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 04:55, Larry Gilson wrote:
> Thanks Carlo! Looks like this test would not be good for a relay that
> accepts mail from MUAs. However, it would probably be good if one only
> expects traffic from MTAs - like gateways.
The majority of mail comes from MUAs if you think about
Thanks Carlo! Looks like this test would not be good for a relay that
accepts mail from MUAs. However, it would probably be good if one only
expects traffic from MTAs - like gateways. I am surprised to see Exchange
and GroupWise. For Exchange, the OS must not have the default suffix
configured.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:58:42AM -0400, Larry Gilson wrote:
> In reality, does anyone know of legitimate MUAs
> or MTAs that do not form message IDs as @some.domain?
~/Mail>egrep '^(Message-ID:|X-Mailer:)' * | grep -v ':Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED]' |
grep -A1 'Mess
22 matches
Mail list logo
