Joseph Brennan wrote: > > >> Yes, it should have. If a multipart/alternate mail only has a text/html >> part, it should be a text/html mail. > > > No. The standard allows multipart/alternative to contain only > one part. See the comment in RFC 2046 5.1.1 : > > NOTE: Experience has shown that a "multipart" media type with a > single body part is useful for sending non-text media types. > Interesting, I was unware of that. > > At any rate, our job here is to detect spam, not be the RFC police. Agreed. However, there are times where it's not worth fixing a FP case because its a rare case caused by a small-scale broken tool that violates the specs.
And of course, it goes both ways.. just because it's RFC legal, doesn't mean SA shouldn't penalize it because it smells like spam. > > There is legitimate software that creates multipart/alternative > messages with only one part that is html. Fair enough, it might be worth splitting the rule to see how that works out. ie: create a SINGLEPART_MULTIPART rule and see how it fares. Of course, I lack the time right now to write it, so unless Theo or someone else wants to jump on it, I'm sure patches are welcome.
