At Fri Jul 25 09:16:45 2003, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Martin Radford wrote:
> >
> > If that's correct, I think people on the beta program really should
> > report it as a bug, irrespective of the fact that a Message-ID is not
> > technically mandatory.
>
> Lots of headers that SHOULD be present in normal SMTP don't have to be
> present at message submission time. I think it's fine for the MUA to rely
> on the MTA to add the message-ID; in fact the MTA is probably better at
> choosing a good one than the MUA.
I understand that point.
But Outlook has been generating its own Message-ID for years, so to
remove it looks unusual. So either someone at MS has made a
deliberate decision to remove it (in which case their answer will be
"it's a design decision"), and that's fine. Or for some reason, it
has been unintentionally removed ("Oops, we'll put that back"). But
if I were on the beta program, I'd want to report it based on the
possibility that it is a bug. To me, it's certainly "an unexpected
change in behaviour" that merits being queried.
Let's face it, the scores given to these FORGED_MUA_* rules indicates
that they do pretty well at spotting spam. (The main problem is with
mailing lists that replace the Message-ID with one they've generated
themselves.)
Martin
--
Martin Radford | "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | men just upload their important stuff -o)
Registered Linux user #9257 | on ftp and let the rest of the world /\\
- see http://counter.li.org | mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds _\_V
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
