> At Fri Aug 15 22:36:30 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote: > >> Exactly what version of Outlook or Outlook Express are you using ? >> >> As far as I can see the FORGED_MUA_OIMO rule is significantly broken and >> falsely detects recent versions of Outlook/Outlook Express as being >> "forged". I reported this to the developers more than a month ago now, >> but >> it seems that I was too late for the fix to be included into 2.60 :-( > > On the other hand, if use of Outlook 2003 (a beta, un-released > product) is sufficiently widespread, then this rule will get a lower > result in 2.60 than it does in 2.55, since it will be less good as a > spam indicator. > > If you're on the Office 2003 beta programme, then you might consider > reporting the alleged change in behaviour (apparently, Outlook no > longer generates its own Message-ID, relying on the MTA to generate > one instead) as a possible bug.
I'm not on the beta program, and in any case I don't see that Microsoft is likely to listen to anything we might like to suggest about what they should or shouldn't do in future versions of OE... Are you sure that its not generating its own Message-ID ? Just how is that being determined ? From a visual glance at my own sample message I can't see how SA can possibly be determining whether the Message-ID is being generated by the client or not. See my original bug report and attached message at: http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2135 >> Also broken is MSGID_OE_SPAM_4ZERO which triggers on netfolders >> updates.. > > Likewise, if that's in the corpora used by people contributing to the > mass-checks it'll affect the score in 2.60. Perhaps, but wouldn't it be better to actually fix the problem ? These two rules combined are enough to go over a threshold of 7 let alone the default 5, and both rules are essentially broken. If the GA decides that it has to reduce the scores for those two rules dramatically (and I have a strong suspicion it wont, due to a likely lack of example messages in the GA corpus) then the effectiveness of the rules will be lost in any case. It's unfortunate that at the time I reported it (before 2.55 came out, from memory) that it was deemed too late to fix for 2.60...due to the "feature freeze" at the time. (I argued it was a bug fix to existing rules, but oh well.... :) Regards, Simon ------------------------------------------------------- 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
