Daryl C. W. O'Shea a écrit :
> David Lee wrote:
>
>> If, conversely, it is not in breach, then SA has a problem: it shouldn't
>> be marking it "INVALID_DATE". Incidentally, it is this aspect (rather
>> than any other) of the date that is triggering this SA rule, isn't it?
>
>
> I guess we could fix it by renaming the rule "STUPIDLY_FORMATTED_DATE".
>
> Anyone writing their own mail application, such as this mobile
> providers, should really stick to formatting as seen in well established
> MTAs.
>
sure, but if we take it the rfc way,
FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS, NO_REAL_NAME
are pure abuse. and they do cause FPs (dunno about FROM_LOCAL_HEX).
same with other rules.
I here mean that you can't go as a "std crusader" and at the same time
break the standards by tagging std compliant mail. statistics are no
excuse for rejecting/tagging mail.
I lately saw an FP with RCVD illegal IP, because of a 127.0.0.80 IP.
while this rarely used, it's not illegal. so the rule is just bogus IMHO.
