http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5666
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-09 05:12 -------
I'm reopening this because I just thought of a possible much better fix.
Every example I've seen of this Message-ID format, including those in the
attachments here, and the examples I found through Google search such as I
linked to in bug 5765, have had a Received header come after the Message-ID
header, which trips the MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER rule. It seems to me that if the
server generates a Message-ID, then the Message-ID obviously cannot come from
the MUA, A hit on MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER rule should prevent FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK
from triggering. This can be done with
meta __FORGED_OE (__OE_MUA && !__OE_MSGID_1 && !__OE_MSGID_2 && !__OE_MSGID_3
&& !MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER && !__UNUSABLE_MSGID)
Some of the examples in bug 4065 do not have a Received header after the
Message-ID header, so there is still a need for __OE_MSGID_3, but as far as I
have seen this would fix these FPs without having to define __OE_MSGID_4, and it
would prevent similar FPs from any other MTA that does something similar to
sympatico.ca's servers.
The problem I have with changing the rule without further discussion is that the
mass-check corpus doesn't seem to have any examples of this. I can show that
the rule does no harm, but we don't have example FPs in the corpus.
Any thoughts on this?
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
