--- On Fri, 7/31/09, David F. Skoll wrote: > Outlook's explanation is wrong. From RFC 2822:
I know it's not as precise as it should be, but remember we're dealing with Microsoft - a delusional company that regularly thinks it can do its own thing and everyone else will conform to them. > > but I stand by my view that a positive value (toward spaminess) > > should still be assigned when it is identical to the "From" header > > value. > > That's not my experience. For some spams, especially phishing spams, > Reply-To: is very different because the sender wants to trick the > recipient into replying to a throwaway address even if the purported > From: address looks official. Considering that the Reply-To header is supposed to be different than the From header, the difference itself isn't significant information. Now, WHERE that reply-to redirects replies is significant info., especially when the domain part of that mailbox is repeated in a URL in the message body. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
