Ian Eiloart wrote: >> The "headers_remove = User-Agent" line is something entirely different >> that tends to help. You'll find many references on the web to hotmail >> blocking certain messages that contain Thunderbird in the User-Agent >> header, but allowing through messages that are exactly the same, but >> without the User-Agent header. I tested this myself a while back and it >> was true. > > Why would an MUA add a "User-Agent" header? It's an HTTP or net-news > header, not a mail header. > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html> > Arguably, Microsoft are doing the right thing by punishing clients for > using non-standard headers.
Non-standard headers? You can add *any* arbitrarily named header you want to an email. At least Thunderbird and Mutt both use "User-Agent". I've not tested other MUAs. Microsoft aren't, "doing the right thing," or anything even close to sensible by scoring so harshly on this header. > Perhaps the sensible thing to do is to replace the User-Agent header with > an X-mailer: header > > Or, perhaps someone should register user-agent as a mail header. > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864> says how, and says that part of the > point is "encouraging convergence of header field name usage across > multiple applications and protocols" Or perhaps Microsoft should drop SmartScreen and use a decent filtering technology. Mike -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
