On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT) John Hardin wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, RW wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT) > > John Hardin wrote: > > > >> MIME_NO_TEXT is a *very* simple rule: "has a content-type: > >> multipart/* header in the main message headers" and "has no > >> content-type: text/* MIME header anywhere." > > > > I've only 3 hits on this in the last 4k spam, but FWIW all of them > > are due to the CT missing the subtype plain. This is a significant > > RFC violation; it might be worth creating a separate, general > > MISSING_SUBTYPE rule and adding it as an exclusion to > > MIME_NO_TEXT. > > I don't follow what you're saying, can you provide an example?
They have something like: Content-Type: text; charset="utf-8" rather than Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" It's probably a rare mistake, but I was thinking of a rule like: header __MISSING_SUBTYPE_1 Content-Type =~ /^\w+[;\s]/ mimeheader __MISSING_SUBTYPE_2 Content-Type =~ /^\w+[;\s]/ meta MISSING_SUBTYPE __MISSING_SUBTYPE_1 || __MISSING_SUBTYPE_2
