I'm assuming that this only happens with Outlook 2003 used with a
non-Exchange (POP3/IMAP/SMTP mode)?
Here are two headers from Outlook 2003 installed by Office 2003 Pro
Microsoft Volume Licensing (not OEM)
>From Outlook/MAPI via Exchange 2003
-0-
Received: from us-inboundmx.blank.com [61.220.41.95] by popmail.domain2.com
with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.03) id AFB28130208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: testing
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: testing
Thread-Index: AcO7G6c5ASWwh2hOTRWz0b/pUSbfKw==
From: "Mark E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Note: Weight: 0 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for spam.
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: Whitelisted
X-Spam-Prob: 0.169437
X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Status: U
X-UIDL: 341408898
-0-
>From Outlook/POP3/SMTP via iMail SMTP
-0-
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from ussmtpin2.blank.com ([10.7.4.111]) by us-inboundmx.blank.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0);
Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:53 -0500
Received: from popmail.domain2.com [16.196.89.161] by ussmtpin2.blank.com
with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.03) id A0B38CD0118; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:51 -0500
Received: from msmithd800xp [162.83.21.69] by popmail.domain2.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-8.03) id A0AF8330208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
From: "Mark Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Testing from domain2
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Thread-Index: AcO7HD5aazFkluigRS2DXlE/jJeQ9w==
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam
[4000020e].
X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
(46)
X-Note: Weight: 3 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for spam.
X-RBL-Warning: WHITELISTFILE: Message failed WHITELISTFILE test (100)
X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-HELO: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-HELO test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
(37)
X-Note: Weight: -110 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for viruses and spam.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 10:40:53.0729 (UTC)
FILETIME=[42002510:01C3BB1C]
-0-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.
> Scott Perry
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation
> for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance
>
>
> >I have a customer who was having trouble with his messages sent to
> >users on servers that use spam filters not being delivered.
> I had him
> >send a message to me so I could see what tests it fails. As some of
> >you may have already guessed, he's got a new pc with Outlook
> 2003 and
> >the messages fail the spam headers test. I informed him that among
> >mail server and/or spamfilter administrators this is a known issue.
> >So, he calls MS. MS says it's OEM software, call the
> vendor. Dell says I'm full of it.
> >
> >So...
> >
> >Would someone with more thorough and better understanding than mine
> >please send me something (with permission to quote or I'd just lift
> >from
> >archives) that I can send to this customer? I'm looking for
> what it is
> >that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what RFC it is not
> conforming to. He
> >wants to then show it to Dell and request an exchange for
> Office 2002.
>
> It's really a Microsoft issue (it's a bug -- er, "new
> feature" -- in Outlook 2003), but they may have a special
> arrangement with Dell. Microsoft had a few complaints from
> people using Outlook that their machine name was "leaked" in
> the Message-ID header. Instead of ignoring the complaint, or
> making the host name used in the Message-ID: header
> configurable, they chose to remove the Message-ID: header.
>
> Microsoft is technically RFC-compliant, *if* they understand
> the consequences of what they did. In order words, it is
> only RFC-compliant if accept the fact that the E-mail sent
> from Outlook 2003 may be marked as spam.
>
> Microsoft's position, from what we understand, is that they
> expect all mailservers to whitelist outgoing E-mail from
> Outlook 2003 users, and add the Message-ID: header.
>
> -Scott
> ---
> Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail
> mailservers.
> Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in
> mailserver vulnerability detection.
> Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day
> evaluation.
>
> ---
> [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
> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be
> found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
>
---
[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
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
