On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 12:42 +0000, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Steve Kemp wrote:
>
> > On the other hand I've had good success rejecting messages with
> > no Date header - as that MUST be present...
>
> I've often wondered whether to bother with that. SA assigns a couple of
> points for it, but there is certainly more justification for rejecting
> outright on that basis. Nearly 500 hits on SA's MISSING_DATE rule today
> ...
>
As far as I can see SA (3.2.5) currently assigns this a very low score:
score MISSING_DATE 0.001 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
score MISSING_MID 0.001 # n=1 n=2 n=3
Even when there are no headers present SA seems to score low:
meta NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE (MISSING_DATE && MISSING_HEADERS &&
NO_RECEIVED && NO_RELAYS && MISSING_MID)
score NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE 0.001
Perhaps literally increasing the score of MISSING_DATE to a couple of
points would make a difference.
John.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 587287
E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +44 (0)1752 587001
--
## 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/
