>
> Do you know that for certain?
No one knows anything for certain. BUT since my clients send
literally thousands of mailpieces daily (large associations to their
respective memberships, who make up a very diverse bunch on corporate,
government and free email), with only a very few peeps of protest
(mostly associated with formating... which the client wants to use),
I can say that ColdFusion is not something you should worry about with
the general population. Having run mail servers and bought/used
various server-level antispam products, I haven't seen anything that
biases against CF ... unless the mail server admin decides to write in
a rule personally. Certainly thats possible, and totally
uncontrollable
:-(
Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are, but I have yet to come
across them, personally. It wasn't always like this, and I know what
happens when a mailer does go wrong and the recipients complain to the
sender: the villagers grab their pitchforks, light torches and come
after me. CF6+ does a litle better, but not much.
> Also has the following: "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
That didn't come from CF.
> >><cfmailparam name="Message-ID" VALUE="<#CreateUUID()[EMAIL PROTECTED]>">
> <cfmailparam name="Content-Type" VALUE="#variables.ContentValue#">
> <cfmailparam name="Mime-Version" VALUE="1.0">
>
> I don't add them as those are all inserted automatically on my headers that I've checked (CFMX 6.1 thru ISP). I think it's bad practice to add anything that might be detected as a forged header such as the message ID, but I see what you mean if not added at all.
How can it be detected if CF places the header properly, and its a
valid value? My CF 6.1 does not place a message ID or a content-type
(just checked). I would say that to be certain a message is formatted
properly you should do all you can before it gets out off your
control. Your ISP is propping up CF and thats fine, but I would
caution that you can't count on that.
> >><cfmailparam name="Reply-To" VALUE="#my.Email#">
> -Just so you know, that is a specific mark of spam on some systems. I get some bounces for "no relaying spam" because of that. (I *think* because of that.)
While I'll admit I've been lazy, I know its not RFC-compliant and have
never removed this, I've been able to *be* lazy because no one seems
to barf on it. If on the other hand you had a sender of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the reply-to was [EMAIL PROTECTED] then yes, that would be a giant red
flag.
> BTW, you should not use external css in an email. Will often fail.
Odd as after a LOT of trial and error we found that an external style
sheet, linked back to the original web site, was the least
failure-prone option. Been doing that ffor a year with few prroblems
(but some, yes). That Hotmail trick sounds very handy as MIA inline
styles were the main reason we dropped them.
I'm pretty satisfied with where we're at with CF, CFMAIL and A/S
systems. We just don't have any measurable level of problems.
Looking forward to trying that style ttrick, though.
--
--Matt Robertson--
MSB Designs, Inc.
mysecretbase.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
