Christopher Lindsey writes:
* !^Message-Id:[\t ]+<("[^"]+"|[^ <>@]+)@[^<>]*>$
Is this compliant yet? I'm not sure it's liberal enuf about
what's left of "@" compared to the spec. For example,
it passed that ugly multi-line thing that I first posted about,
but bounced this one:
#Message-Id: <"OP-MIME expo400:439*""
tripped over that 2nd set of <>'s I think.
Surprisingly enough, I catch a lot of valid email with it. Seems that
Your point is well taken, it's clear message-id checks have to
be part of a scoring mechanism for spam control. I'd like to
just trap non-conforming ones & not try to enumerate all the
spam special cases (espec since they probably have a limited
lifetime). Or perhaps combine them (if it's non-conforming
and fits this other pattern, it's Spam &c).
Maybe someone could post some of the "non-conforming" message-id's
from legitimate well-known sites & we could special case them.
Still, the vast majority of email I get is conforming -- better than
999/1000; it's a useful test.