procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bad message id's

1998-03-18 17:48:21
Christopher Lindsey writes:
   :0:
   * !^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*"" 
<allanm(_at_)op(_dot_)x400(_dot_)icl(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>"@MHS>
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.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>