- wrote:
--- 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
These list messages fit your description of a REPLY-TO: with a domain
matching a URL in the body (as would one from David if the list didn't
change the reply-to, as some don't). What significant information can
you deduce from it?
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
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
