Aaron Schrab writes on 15 September 1997 at 22:11:52
At 02:05 PM, 15 September 1997, R Lindberg / E Winnie
<rlindber(_at_)kendaco(_dot_)telebyte(_dot_)com> wrote:
do it the Reply-To and From headers match and it's classified as SPAM.
Thinking about this I can see other legit uses for the From and Reply-To
headers to match and suspect we need to rethink matching on From and
Reply-To.
If you're marking messages where Reply-To: = From:, that's going to
mismatch on a log of things. Technically, there's no reason for a
Reply-To: that's the same as the From, but it's fairly common.
It's a heuristic, not a hard-and-fast rule; if/when I make this all
weighted, From: = Reply-To: will indicate about a 50% chance of SPAM.
The comments even say that I've generated such mail messages myself -
which is why I added the additional ^FROM_DAEMON check (I usually put
a "Precedence: junk" header in any machine generated message or
something in which I don't want vacation auto-replies which
^FROM_DAEMON matches). For me, if a message matches From: = Reply-To:
and !^FROM_DAEMON it's got around a 75% chance of being SPAM.
Dan
------------------- message is author's opinion only ------------------
J. Daniel Smith <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com>
http://www.bristol.com/~DanS
Bristol Technology B.V. +31 33 450 50 50, ...51 (FAX)
Amersfoort, The Netherlands {info,jobs}(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com