On 11/5/20 4:31 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, RW wrote:
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:48:48 -0500
Bill Cole wrote:
On 4 Nov 2020, at 13:31, Thomas Anderson wrote:
* 1.8 MISSING_MIMEOLE Message has X-MSMail-Priority, but
no X-MimeOLE
In addition to what John noted, that one looks like a candidate for
constructing an exception. MISSING_MIMEOLE already has a number of
exceptions based on the fact that other MUAs have adopted
X-MSMail-Priority but have no reason to use X-MimeOLE because it's a
fundamentally bad idea as a header with no real utility. With a
sample of the headers for the message that hit that rule, we could
add an exception for whatever is generating such messages in this
case.
it was sent via t-online.de see:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7306
t-online.de obviously haven't changed their client in the last four
years, so perhaps we should reopen that bug and add the exception.
AXB - any comments??
I'd lower the rule's score a bit. That way we don't have to track what
t-online.de does/or not does.
comments?
AXB
