On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com wrote:
Message-ID: <000d01c2718a$9c239b80$1f2c5b0c(_at_)sylvia>
Message-ID: <000b01c2718f$48e319a0$36325d0c(_at_)user>
Message-ID: <000701c2879d$ac759f00$02768144(_at_)hppav>
Message-ID: <003301c287d8$47e87ea0$8b325d0c(_at_)yourm5d4u9r2uv>
So, what was your question, again? Oh, yeah: Why doesn't Microsoft
conform to accepted standards and recommended procedures, was it?
No. My question, which Sean has already answered, was why don't the
message IDs I see conform to the one Sean provided as an example. I use
Linux because I got sick of Windows - but the rest of my family appears to
be able to tolerate it.
When I grep for Message-ID on known spam I've received, I find
that about 50% of the Message-IDs contain my own server domain.
???
Yes, that implies that the mail was injected (at the SMTP port)
directly from the spammer's end and without a Message-ID. Your
server ascribes one if none is present. That's routine. I use
that along with a more complex trust calculus in another recipe,
as a matter of fact, as another of my spam-fighting recipes.
Then I could use a rule that said, in effect, if the Message-ID contains
raq2.paxp.com (my server) then I can assume it is (highly probably) spam?
Message-IDs that are received from me have fleet1.paxp.com in
Pine-generated IDs. I should be able to use this even for those damned
Undisclosed Recipient messages? (Every once in a while I get a valid BCC
message; but usually from a known source who's message would have a valid
Message-ID.)
- fleet -
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail