On Monday 18 August 2003 02:38 CET Simon Byrnand wrote: > At 12:30 16/08/2003 +0100, Martin Radford wrote: > >As I've pointed out in a previous message on this topic, it's not > >impossible that this behaviour is a bug. It it is reported, there > >will be one of two responses - "Oops, it's a bug, we'll fix before > >release", or "No, that's a deliberate design decision, live with it". > > > >If it is a deliberate choice on Microsoft's part, they may have made > >it without considering all the ramifications. Pointing out that this > >is causing a problem with third party software may or may not prompt > >them to review this, but unless it's reported as a problem, they'll > >never know people are concerned about this. > > Sure, but at the end of the day though, Microsoft will do as Microsoft > pleases, it's only our *opinion* that the client should add its own > message id, and if Microsoft chooses to change the *format* of the > message id, thats entirely up to them too.
Yes. In [1] you'll find a reference to the Outlook newsgroups where I explained the problem to the Microsoft devs. The latest reply of Jeff Stephenson is: | I've got some ideas for alternatives that do generate a Message-ID while | addressing the privacy concerns, but those won't be in Outlook 2003 (we | wouldn't take a change of that nature at this stage). [...] > My point is that these are relatively high scoring rules that *by their > very nature* (checking for "known" versions of OE/Outlook) will start > FP'ing whenever Microsoft bring out a new version which uses a slightly > different format. For this reason the maximum scores for these kind of > rules should always be reigned in to a safe maximum value rather than > giving the GA a free hand with those scores. (And the GA has the facility > to do this) You're welcome to improve the GA code :) > Otherwise the same thing will keep happening every time one of the major > email programs comes out with a new version that modifies the Message ID > format and/or anything else these rules check. Yes, but this will also happen always when some major application changes its HTML parsing behaviour or some big ISP changes how his server works. All we can do is fixing the rules when such a thing happens (or we won't have such efficient ones -- remember the the Outlook-forgery rules were very efficient until Outlook 2003 cropped up). >[...] > >It would be, but as you say below, the report came too late for 2.60. > >It has to be the developers' choice as to how they manage the > >software. I'm not happy with their decision in this case either, but > >that's life. > > Yeah, I'm not complaining about it, just pointing out that its a shame > that a new version is going to come out with a fairly significant already > known bug... :/ I can more or less say the same what Jeff Stephenson said: At such a late stage before the release wo *can't* remove or change any rules because that would mean at least another GA-run (if not another call for mass-checks). > >If it becomes a major problem, it's not inconceivable that the scoring > >might be redone between minor revisions (as happened between 2.53 and > >2.54). Yes, that's what probably will happen. There are at least two other rules which also behave suboptimal, so (as always) we've got to fix that stuff for the branch. But guys, please try out 2.60 when it's out because (a) you might find other b0rked rules which we can fix for 2.61 (or whatever) and (b) those rules were already b0rked in 2.5x, so staying with the old version won't help anyway. > > > 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.... :) > > > >This is one of the problems with beta software. What happens if the > >developers remove this rule, and then Outlook 2003 is released with > >different behaviour, and goes back to Outlook 2000-style message-ids? > >You suddenly get significant problems with spammers forging X-Mailer > >headers again (a la 2.5[0123]). Yeah, we never knew how Outlook 2003 will behave and nobody knew theres a way to either get an own beta or contact the develeopers. (I must admit we were just a bit lazy because when I really looked for it, I found both.) Cheers, Malte [1]http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1970#c15 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
