Hi Everyone,
We have an application that generates email using Cold Fusion. The
application sends email to me. The email never goes outside of our servers.
Declude is flagging the email as having BadHeaders:
X-RBL-Warning: BADHEADERS: This E-mail was sent from a broken mail client
[8004000e].
, April 30, 2008 12:36 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
Hi Everyone,
We have an application that generates email using Cold Fusion. The
application sends email to me. The email never goes outside of our servers.
Declude is flagging the email as having
] On Behalf Of David
Barker
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:55 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
The E-mail failed the BADHEADERS test. This means the email failed with a
violation of the RFC. This specific code indicates a incorrect Message-ID
: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:17 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
David,
Thank you for the explanation. I actually wrote the code that generates the
Message-ID. Do you happen to have a link to documentation that would show
the proper format for the Message-ID
Hi,
IKEA sends a big mailrun, headers for one of the mail is below.
If I check the BADHEADERS code 802d at tools.declude.com I get:
SMTP Dialog MX record Lookup failed (error #0 ().
Trying A record for ...A record Lookup failed (error #0 ().
You need an MX record for in order to send
Hi,
A client sent this email back to me saying that they cannot read it.
Well no wonder the message did not get un-decoded properly.
I have two questions:
1) The badheaders code (8c02) means that there was no This E-mail
has no From: header. And yet it appears to have one two lines after
Hi,
Can someone point me to detailed info on what the BADHEADERS test looks
at and/or how this error can be remedied? Already looked in the declude
manual, not enough info.
Thanks, Andrew
ISP guy
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an
Here ya go Andy:
http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php
-Nick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Can someone point me to detailed info on what the BADHEADERS test looks
at and/or how this error can be remedied? Already looked in the declude
manual, not enough info.
Thanks, Andrew
ISP guy
---
These tests (especially BADHEADERS) seem to be catching a lot of legit
mail lately. I've attached one of the headers It seems like many of
the emails are sent from Exchange servers. What exactly makes the
headers bad?Any ideas?
Received: from ss_email.ssc.internal [216.201.186.154] by
Kevin,
Microsoft E-mail clients have a nasty habit of excluding the To when
there are only CC or BCC recipients. You will almost exclusively see
this on some sort of E-mail blast from Exchange servers. The proper
(RFC compliant) way to construct the headers when no To address is
specified
@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS and HELOBOGUS coming up a lot
These tests (especially BADHEADERS) seem to be catching a lot of legit
mail lately. I've attached one of the headers It seems like many of
the emails are sent from Exchange servers. What exactly makes the
headers bad
Hi
You are using both Sniffer and the Invariant Systems URI tests together?
Maybe I was even denser than I thought, but I thought they sort of
duplicated each other.
Thanks,
Rob
snip on
We have learned over the past year, that most of the built-in tests of
Declude are not effective like
Title: Message
I've
noticed quite a few spams, possibly from the same outfit, that are including an
old date in the header, which is possibly static:
Received: from minusplus.com [83.195.193.238] by
mail.bentall.com (SMTPD32-8.14) id A3013C2E00CE; Sat, 26 Feb 2005
15:15:13 -0800Date: 1 Dec
Scott,
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for
not having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on
my system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to
be held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for not
having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on my
system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to be
held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that Microsoft
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the
same results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception ,
only the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the
CC field,
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well, will
allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the same
results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception , only
the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the CC
field,
Very much appreciated. Back when I did a review of hits for this, I
think it was over 95% FP's. Even if that isn't accurate, it's
problematic enough to allow us to turn it off.
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will
Scott,
BADHEADERS caught the following E-mail for the Message ID. I'm not sure
if this is an RFC issue or not though, thinking that it might be due to
the fact that the ID starts with a period, or maybe because it includes
a comma??? Could you clarify that this is definitely a valid
BADHEADERS caught the following E-mail for the Message ID. I'm not sure
if this is an RFC issue or not though, thinking that it might be due to
the fact that the ID starts with a period, or maybe because it includes a
comma??? Could you clarify that this is definitely a valid BADHEADERS hit?
Hi,
Do you know also how to fix too that with ASPMAil ?
Thanks
Mehdi Blagui
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Jose Gosende
Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2003 15:49
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Question
Do you know also how to fix too that with ASPMAil ?
Upgrading ASPMail to the latest version should take care of the problem.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers.
Declude Virus: Catches known viruses
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
Thanks
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
E-mail is broken).
Most likely, upgrading the mail client will fix the problem.
Why would I need
Interesting. Thanks for the info!
Jose
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Question
Legitimate email is failing
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
E-mail is broken).
Most likely, upgrading the mail client will fix the problem.
: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Question
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
E-mail is broken).
Most likely, upgrading the mail client will fix the problem
Scott/All,
I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone have
it on hand?
-Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone have
it on hand?
That one is caused by a missing To: header.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail
I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone
have it on hand?
That one is caused by a missing To: header.
Thanks--I would've caught it if I'd had the original e-mail, but I
just had the alert. Is it indeed not at /tools/badheaders?
-Sandy
---
[This E-mail was
Thanks--I would've caught it if I'd had the original e-mail, but I
just had the alert. Is it indeed not at /tools/badheaders?
No, it isn't -- the problem is that there were some other flags in there
that were causing the lookup tool to fail.
-Scott
---
]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to
ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance
out on your own...LOL
Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop again
Jim
Hello All,
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests and
it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the occasional
legitimate email from badly formatted clients. For example, JunkMail caught
a confirmation email from an online service that one of my
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Troy Hilton
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 15:53
To: Declude Junkmail Forum (E-mail)
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
Hello All,
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests
and
it's catching
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests and
it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the occasional
legitimate email from badly formatted clients. For example, JunkMail caught
a confirmation email from an online service that one of my co-workers
Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to
ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance
out on your own...LOL
Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop again
Jim. The diesel fumes are getting to you again.
:-)
John
Hello all,
Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
BADHEADERS test and I can't see why.
Thanks.
Troy D. Hilton
SofWerks LLC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses
Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
It checks for E-mail headers that are broken (non-RFC-compliant). There
are a number of different things that it looks for.
I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
BADHEADERS test
Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
It checks for E-mail headers that are broken (non-RFC-compliant). There
are a number of different things that it looks for.
OK.
I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
BADHEADERS test
Hi there,
I'm new to this list and to Declude for that matter. I can say however that
it does a terrific job.
I need your advise on the following:
A lot of legitimate e-mail is getting caught because of badheaders.
Although we have set revdns, noabuse, nopostmaster and routing to ignore
it
instead of the server name.
Best regards
Lachezar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Badheaders, Eudora and Incredimail
A lot
THis is the header from one of the incredimail messages:
Message-Id: 3D74673B.1E.19449@Tyrone Sons.realnet.co.sz
This one looks like Incredimail doesn't do an incredible job checking host
names -- the last I checked, host names could not include a space in them. :)
The following is the
Scott..
Thanks a lot.
-Zul
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Badheaders.
One of our developer created a vb program to send mail using our smtp
server but the mail
Hi,
One of ourdeveloper created a vb program to
send mail using our smtp server but the mail failed the BADHEADERS spam test.
Can anyone please give me more info on the BADHEADERS spam test or how to
rectify this ?
Thanks.
-Zul
One of our developer created a vb program to send mail using our smtp
server but the mail failed the BADHEADERS spam test. Can anyone please
give me more info on the BADHEADERS spam test or how to rectify this ?
To find out, you need to find the code that Declude JunkMail assigned the
E-mail
I have a message that was flagged as having bad headers. I tried figuring out the
code so that I could use your badheader lookup, but I can't figure out what I'm
supposed to use in there. Here are the headers.
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by sirc.ca
(SMTP32) id A0157; Thu, 18 Apr 2002
I have a message that was flagged as having bad headers. I tried figuring
out the
code so that I could use your badheader lookup, but I can't figure out
what I'm
supposed to use in there. Here are the headers.
To find the code, you have the use the WARN action, or check the Declude
Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
No.
No legitimate mail should ever fail the BADHEADERS test. A legitimate mail
will only fail that test if it comes from a broken mail client.
Legitimate mail may fail the SPAMHEADERS test, if it is sent from a poorly
What is a broken mail client?
A mail client that doesn't work. For example, if you use Outlook, and your
E-mail address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it creates an E-mail header
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], that would be an example of a broken mail
client. There are some older E-mail clients and
Is there anything we can do to customize the way BADHEADERS tests? If there
are several tests that it does, I would like to be able to turn on or off
those components that give us false positives but be able to use this test
for components that always find spam. SPAMHEADERS also?
---
This
51 matches
Mail list logo
