Not all RFCs are standards.
Educate yourself.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <'uh...@fantomas.sk'>
wrote:
On 07.02.17 18:33, Ruga wrote:
>I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions.
what are you talking about?
822, 2822 and 5322 all define group address form as allowed.
> If the sender hides the recipients, why should I care delivering its junk
> to my valued accounts?
you can create a rule for yourself that will score those headers.
However others will probably not use it, since it's quite common for some
companies to send mass mail to addresses not known to recipients
(so they won't abuse those addresses).
>Bear in mind the state of corruption we live in. Spam is also a business,
> and the RFC proposed revisions are adapting to such business, to allow for
> it instead of impeding it.
so why don't you follow those proposed revisions as you have stated above?
>On the subject length, although the RFC standard did not foresee the abuse,
> it did speak about the intended purpose of the field. If it does not fit
> the one line of 78 (ASCII) characters, it bounches back to the sender. I
> understand that sloppy e-mail software allows spammers to send the library
> of congress inside a subject field, but rest assured that I such abuses do
> not survive my filters, even if Trump himself will allow for it with a
> presidential decree.
...and now you even want to ignore them at all...
simply try defining rules for long subjects and score them properly.
This should be just enough:
header SUBJECT_OVER_78 Subject =~ /^.{79}/
header SUBJECT_OVER_100 Subject =~ /^.{101}/
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"Where do you want to go to die?" [Microsoft]
