On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 16:08, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > While the Date clearly is a bug in the webmail client and should be > > reported there, > > > >> - HTML only message with no text > >> - Outlook-ish headers, but not all of them (indicates someone trying > >> to look like Outlook ... incorrectly) > > > > These two are perfectly legal to have. (But I, personally, wouldn't use > > a webmail generating html-only mails, and would complain if I got > > regularly sent such messages. But this is just a matter of taste). > > It may be legal, but non-conformance to email RFCs is only one type of > spam indicator (and some RFC-type rules don't work well). Anyway, SA is > not an email RFC validator. It's a spam detector. If we only used > header and other formatting rules for invalid RFC conformance, SA would > be a lot less effective.
I do know how spamassassin works and what it is used for. What I meant was: an incorrect Date: header is something that should be fixed. HTML-only mail and not-outlookish-enough headers are not something that UebiMiau needs to fix, it's just the characteristics of a regular MUA, so it's spamassassin's fault for labeling legitimate messages with these characteristics as spam. In this particular case, it's even very easy: sa can compensate for UMs 'problems' as UM generates an X-Mailer header, so sa doesn't need to lower any scores that do indeed label help recognising spam in most cases. cheers -- vbi -- featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/subkeys
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
