On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 07:27:07PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: | On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 the voices made CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson write: | | > But with the large amount of Outlook Express users out there I imagine that | > this rule will cause alot of false positives. You can talk all day about MS | > not following RFC standards but in the end the customer still gets | > legitimate email tagged as Spam and is not happy and they don't care about | > RFCs. | | And... SA is there to protect against spam, not block e-mails from | valid sources because of some "I'm so much better than thou because | I only read RFC-valid e-mails"-thinking... which I'm sure no one | here is guilty of, right? =)
Not "better than thou", but rejecting syntactically invalid mail
_does_ catch a bunch of spam. I have some empirical evidence in my
reject logs (what hasn't already been rotated out of existence).
One time I read an article on the web explaining Outlook's brokenness,
and also had step-by-step instructions, for users, to workaround the
bug and not send the invalid messages. I can't seem to find that
article now.
As I said though, I guess I don't personally care much what you do
with that rule because my exim setup rejects all syntactically invalid
junk in the first place.
-D
--
If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his
cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What
good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or
what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mark 8:34-37
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
msg07092/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
