On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, John Horne wrote: > 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.
I stand corrected: in fact it turns out this is exactly what I had done, back in the mists of time ... ! Might still move it to an SMTP-time check though ... although a cursory glance at today's matches show that the message "Your latest statement is available online" from [email protected] would match. How lame. Jethro. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jethro R Binks Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK -- ## 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/
