Yet Another Ninja wrote: > On 9/2/2008 1:00 PM, Nicolas Letellier wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:51:58 +0200 >> Yet Another Ninja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Can you post a sample message on some web server (pastebin.com) so >>> ppl can see what's causing this? >>> PLEASE do NOT munge servernames & IPs >> >> See the headers: >> http://pastebin.ca/1191372 >> >> I don't have the full message, just headers. >> (I remplaced mails, servernames, etc... by domain.com) > > unless I'm totally blind and clueless, we're missing a Rcvd header in > there. > afaik Postfix doesn't do this so what are we missing in that message > path? > Who is conecting to Postfix? Interesting observation, and probably important at some point, but I'd treat that as a side note. It's not relevant to the problem at hand. > >> Do you have a solution? A patch? >> Is it better to disable MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT check? > > I'd would lower the score on that rule till you have it figured out. > A "patch" without a Bugzilla entry won't trigger, and it would hardly > be an instant fix either. Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
There's also a bug already open on this. https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5707 We might need to convert that rule to a meta and ignore it when the MUA is outlook 12.0 unless we can figure out that the outlook in question has some weird hack that causes it, and normal outlook 12 doesn't cause the problem.. Although I personally feel makers (and knowing users) of broken tools should suffer, I don't think SpamAssassin is the best spot to implement that. :-)
