On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote: > | Daniel Quinlan wrote: > | > | DQ> Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | DQ> > | DQ> > And a few slightly questionable scores: > | DQ> > > | DQ> > - This was 0.87 before. Less and less useful? > | DQ> > score FROM_AND_TO_SAME -2.071 > | DQ> > | DQ> I think this one should go. It's a common way to send email to a > | DQ> large list of people without subjecting them all to the address list. > > Isn't that what "Undisclosed Recipients:" is meant for?
yes and no. Please note that Outlook mailers actaully violate the RFC's when they create this line, which is why you should enabled the following exim option only with care: headers_check_syntax = true We were running it for a while since it blocked a reasonble amount of spam but I gave up recently cause it's really too much trouble. Here is the bit I used to send out to people: ---cut-here--- 1. The Problem When Outlook is used to send email to a list of people the ihug.co.nz addresses will bounce with an error message similar to: 550 Syntax error in 'To' header: "@" or "." expected after "Undisclosed-Recipient": failing address is: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> 2. The Quick Solution When the list maintainer sends email to the list they should put a real email address (their own is best) in the "To: " field and *then* Bcc to the list. This will fix the error. 3. Why does this happen? The problem is caused by people who use Outlook and Bcc an email to a list of people. Outlook then puts: To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> as the "to:" header. However according to the email standards this sort of To: header is in fact illegal so it is rejected by our email servers (which are strict on checking this). We run our mail servers to check for these illegal headers since it also helps to cut down on the amount of spam our customers receive, some other ISPs don't check for this however. There is some reference to the problem at: http://www.exim.org/pipermail/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20000522/018366.html If you need to check the standards to see exactly what is wrong then the main problem is that anything inside <>'s must include an "@" symbol. See Section 6.1 of RFC 822 for the whole thing. Or sections 3.4 and 3.4.1 of RFC 2822. ---cut-here--- -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
