Am 31.05.2016 um 10:43 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 30 May 2016, at 15:07, Alex wrote:Yeah, that's it exactly. Particularly overseas where it doesn't appear NAT and/or submission are used as readily as they are here.Am 31.05.2016 um 03:09 schrieb Bill Cole:Irrelevant in this case because if you trust that header not to be an intentionally deceptive lie, the receiving server claims the mail was received with authentication, making it very unlikely that the message is spamOn 31.05.16 10:30, Reindl Harald wrote:you can not trust any header not written by your own MTA and hence all that deep header parsing is nonsense with any score above 0.01 or below -0.01why? If someone fakes a clear spammy sign, I see no point in giving them higher score
the why is well explained by the FSL deep-header crap in the last few months and why a received header in the middle is wrong for RBL lookups was excessive explained in that thread, just read it
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
