Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:17 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
David,
Thank you for the explanation. I actually wrote the code that generates the
Message-ID. Do you happen to have a link to documentation that would show
the proper format for the Messa
ED] On Behalf Of David
> Barker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
>
> The E-mail failed the BADHEADERS test. This means the email failed with a
> violation of the RFC. This specific code in
, April 30, 2008 12:36 PM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BadHeaders?
Hi Everyone,
We have an application that generates email using Cold Fusion. The
application sends email to me. The email never goes outside of our servers.
Declude is flagging the email as having
Hi Everyone,
We have an application that generates email using Cold Fusion. The
application sends email to me. The email never goes outside of our servers.
Declude is flagging the email as having BadHeaders:
X-RBL-Warning: BADHEADERS: This E-mail was sent from a broken mail client
[8004000e].
Hi,
IKEA sends a big mailrun, headers for one of the mail is below.
If I check the BADHEADERS code 802d at tools.declude.com I get:
SMTP Dialog MX record Lookup failed (error #0 ().
Trying A record for ...A record Lookup failed (error #0 ().
You need an MX record for in order to send
Hi,
A client sent this email back to me saying that they cannot read it.
Well no wonder the message did not get un-decoded properly.
I have two questions:
1) The badheaders code (8c02) means that there was no "This E-mail
has no From: header." And yet it appears to have one two lines after
Here ya go Andy:
http://www.declude.com/tools/header.php
-Nick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Can someone point me to detailed info on what the BADHEADERS test looks
at and/or how this error can be remedied? Already looked in the declude
manual, not enough info.
Thanks, Andrew
ISP guy
---
Hi,
Can someone point me to detailed info on what the BADHEADERS test looks
at and/or how this error can be remedied? Already looked in the declude
manual, not enough info.
Thanks, Andrew
ISP guy
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail
Hi
You are using both Sniffer and the Invariant Systems URI tests together?
Maybe I was even denser than I thought, but I thought they sort of
duplicated each other.
Thanks,
Rob
We have learned over the past year, that most of the built-in tests of
Declude are not effective like they were i
Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:48 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS and HELOBOGUS coming up a lot
These tests (especially BADHEADERS) seem to be catching a lot of legit
mail lately. I've attached one of the headers It seems like many of
the emails are
Kevin,
Microsoft E-mail clients have a nasty habit of excluding the To when
there are only CC or BCC recipients. You will almost exclusively see
this on some sort of E-mail blast from Exchange servers. The proper
(RFC compliant) way to construct the headers when no To address is
specified w
Thanks for showing me that sweet tool, Nick. Has anyone come across
this error enough to know which mail client was sending it or if it
could be sent legitmately but still gets flagged?
Not having a To: is pretty bad I assume.
Thanks.
Nick Hayer wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Rogers wrote:
The
Hi Kevin,
Kevin Rogers wrote:
These tests (especially BADHEADERS) seem to be catching a lot of legit
mail lately. I've attached one of the headers It seems like many of
the emails are sent from Exchange servers. What exactly makes the
headers bad?Any ideas?
Here is what made this on
These tests (especially BADHEADERS) seem to be catching a lot of legit
mail lately. I've attached one of the headers It seems like many of
the emails are sent from Exchange servers. What exactly makes the
headers bad?Any ideas?
Received: from ss_email.ssc.internal [216.201.186.154] by
Title: Message
I've
noticed quite a few spams, possibly from the same outfit, that are including an
old date in the header, which is possibly static:
Received: from minusplus.com [83.195.193.238] by
mail.bentall.com (SMTPD32-8.14) id A3013C2E00CE; Sat, 26 Feb 2005
15:15:13 -0800Date: 1 De
Very much appreciated. Back when I did a review of hits for this, I
think it was over 95% FP's. Even if that isn't accurate, it's
problematic enough to allow us to turn it off.
Thanks,
Matt
R. Scott Perry wrote:
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will al
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well, will
allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the same
results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception , only
the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the CC
field, e
I'm using i20 currently. Note that IE and probably Exchange as well,
will allow a CC field with no To and it would previously produce the
same results, I mention this because you didn't mention the exception ,
only the BCC exception. People do of course send out to lists using the
CC field, es
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for not
having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on my
system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to be
held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that Microsoft
allo
Scott,
I've been laying low on this one for a while, but BADHEADERS hits for
not having a proper To address is commonly producing false positives on
my system with personal E-mail, some of which will cause the messages to
be held. The issue here (just in case it was forgotten) is that
Microso
BADHEADERS caught the following E-mail for the Message ID. I'm not sure
if this is an RFC issue or not though, thinking that it might be due to
the fact that the ID starts with a period, or maybe because it includes a
comma??? Could you clarify that this is definitely a valid BADHEADERS hit?
Scott,
BADHEADERS caught the following E-mail for the Message ID. I'm not sure
if this is an RFC issue or not though, thinking that it might be due to
the fact that the ID starts with a period, or maybe because it includes
a comma??? Could you clarify that this is definitely a valid BADHEADER
Interesting. Thanks for the info!
Jose
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Question
> > >Legitimate email is fa
> >Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
> >modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
> You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
> E-mail is broken).
> Most likely, upgrading the mail client will fix the problem.
Why would I
Do you know also how to fix too that with ASPMAil ?
Upgrading ASPMail to the latest version should take care of the problem.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers.
Declude Virus: Catches known viruses
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
Thanks
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just se
Hi,
Do you know also how to fix too that with ASPMAil ?
Thanks
Mehdi Blagui
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Jose Gosende
Envoyé : lundi 11 août 2003 15:49
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Que
ubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Question
>Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
>modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
E-mail is broken).
Most likely, upgrading the mail cli
Legitimate email is failing the BADHEADERS test. Do I need to
modify something on my server so this test does not fail?
You need to modify something on the mail client (the program sending the
E-mail is broken).
Most likely, upgrading the mail client will fix the problem.
>>I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone
>>have it on hand?
> That one is caused by a missing To: header.
Thanks--I would've caught it if I'd had the original e-mail, but I
just had the alert. Is it indeed not at /tools/badheaders?
-Sandy
---
[This E-mail was s
Thanks--I would've caught it if I'd had the original e-mail, but I
just had the alert. Is it indeed not at /tools/badheaders?
No, it isn't -- the problem is that there were some other flags in there
that were causing the lookup tool to fail.
-Scott
---
I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone have
it on hand?
That one is caused by a missing To: header.
-Scott
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail
Scott/All,
I can't retrieve the extended info for code a400010b. Does anyone have
it on hand?
-Sandy
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
>Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to
ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance
out on your own...LOL
Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop a
>Thanks Scott, I meant to say SPAMHEADERS in lieu of BADHEADERS...to
ya'll I was RFC ignorant...you had to figure the rest of the ignorance
out on your own...LOL
Me thinks you have been spending too much time around a truck stop again
Jim. The diesel fumes are getting to you again.
:-)>
John To
Perry
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
>So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests
and
>it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the
oc
>So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests and
>it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the occasional
>legitimate email from badly formatted clients. For example, JunkMail caught
>a confirmation email from an online service that one of my co-work
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Troy Hilton
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 15:53
To: Declude Junkmail Forum (E-mail)
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS Test question
Hello All,
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running
Hello All,
So far I've been very happy with JunkMail. I'm only running a few tests and
it's catching a lot of spam and porn. However, I'm noticing the occasional
legitimate email from badly formatted clients. For example, JunkMail caught
a confirmation email from an online service that one of my
>Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
It checks for E-mail headers that are broken (non-RFC-compliant). There
are a number of different things that it looks for.
OK.
>I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
>BADHEADERS te
>Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
It checks for E-mail headers that are broken (non-RFC-compliant). There
are a number of different things that it looks for.
>I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
>BADHEADERS test
Hello all,
Can anyone shed any light on exactly what the BADHEADERS test checks for?
I've got a client that is sending me legitimate emails but it's failing the
BADHEADERS test and I can't see why.
Thanks.
Troy D. Hilton
SofWerks LLC.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses
>THis is the header from one of the incredimail messages:
>
>Message-Id: <3D74673B.1E.19449@Tyrone Sons.realnet.co.sz>
This one looks like Incredimail doesn't do an incredible job checking host
names -- the last I checked, host names could not include a space in them. :)
>The following is
TED] e-mail address, and yes your note on the IP
address is correct as there is an IP address instead of the server name.
Best regards
Lachezar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 4:29 PM
To: [EMA
>A lot of legitimate e-mail is getting caught because of badheaders.
That is very bad.
Note that any E-mail failing the BADHEADERS test is likely to get caught on
other servers, as well.
>Although we have set revdns, noabuse, nopostmaster and routing to "ignore"
>it appears that they add "wei
Hi there,
I'm new to this list and to Declude for that matter. I can say however that
it does a terrific job.
I need your advise on the following:
A lot of legitimate e-mail is getting caught because of badheaders.
Although we have set revdns, noabuse, nopostmaster and routing to "ignore"
it a
Scott..
Thanks a lot.
-Zul
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Badheaders.
>
> >One of our developer created a vb program to send ma
>One of our developer created a vb program to send mail using our smtp
>server but the mail failed the BADHEADERS spam test. Can anyone please
>give me more info on the BADHEADERS spam test or how to rectify this ?
To find out, you need to find the code that Declude JunkMail assigned the
E-ma
Hi,
One of our developer created a vb program to
send mail using our smtp server but the mail failed the BADHEADERS spam test.
Can anyone please give me more info on the BADHEADERS spam test or how to
rectify this ?
Thanks.
-Zul
>I have a message that was flagged as having bad headers. I tried figuring
>out the
>code so that I could use your badheader lookup, but I can't figure out
>what I'm
>supposed to use in there. Here are the headers.
To find the code, you have the use the WARN action, or check the Declude
Jun
I have a message that was flagged as having bad headers. I tried figuring out the
code so that I could use your badheader lookup, but I can't figure out what I'm
supposed to use in there. Here are the headers.
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by sirc.ca
(SMTP32) id A0157; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:03:
Unfortunately they do.
Not all mail clients and mail scripts that are used are fully RFC
compliant. Just look at Microsoft Passport password reset service.
badheaders & revdns.
Saw a mac e-mail client the otherday that triggered BOTH badheaders and
spamheaders. :(
Wednesday, March 06, 2002, 10:5
>What is a "broken mail client"?
A mail client that doesn't work. For example, if you use Outlook, and your
E-mail address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", but it creates an E-mail header
"From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", that would be an example of a broken mail
client. There are some older E-mail clients
What is a "broken mail client"?
At 3/6/02 12:07 PM, you wrote:
>>Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
>
>No.
>
>No legitimate mail should ever fail the BADHEADERS test. A legitimate
>mail will only fail that test if it comes from a broken mail client.
Elise Le
> >> Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS? <<
>
>That's pretty common - the two tests "overlap".
It's pretty common for spam, but should never happen with legitimate mail.
The two tests look for different problems, so no one problem will cause
both the BADHEADERS
>Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
No.
No legitimate mail should ever fail the BADHEADERS test. A legitimate mail
will only fail that test if it comes from a broken mail client.
Legitimate mail may fail the SPAMHEADERS test, if it is sent from a poorly
des
>> Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS? <<
That's pretty common - the two tests "overlap".
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send
9 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS
>
> Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus
> (http://www
Should a legitimate email ever fail both BADHEADERS and SPAMHEADERS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
>Is there anything we can do to customize the way BADHEADERS tests? If there
>are several tests that it does, I would like to be able to turn on or off
>those components that give us false positives but be able to use this test
>for components that always find spam. SPAMHEADERS also?
Well, reme
Is there anything we can do to customize the way BADHEADERS tests? If there
are several tests that it does, I would like to be able to turn on or off
those components that give us false positives but be able to use this test
for components that always find spam. SPAMHEADERS also?
---
This E-mai
>I had a mailing go out a little while ago that failed the spamheaders test
>too. Here is the log for it:
>
>SPAMHEADERS (bad headers [,C0400202]),
>
>I'd be very interested to know what this means and if I can do something to
>fix it.
That one appears to have a couple problems.
First, it may
Scott,
I had a mailing go out a little while ago that failed the spamheaders test
too. Here is the log for it:
SPAMHEADERS (bad headers [,C0400202]),
I'd be very interested to know what this means and if I can do something to
fix it.
Terry
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail ma
>BADHEADERS problems for me
>
>1) traps my internal mail generated by ASPQMail and Flick's ocxqmail
>(certainly nothing obvious to me about the headers being wrong)
>
>2) trapped most (maybe all) mailing list posts
>
>I just turned it on again and it immediately started trapping imail forum
>post
BADHEADERS problems for me
1) traps my internal mail generated by ASPQMail and Flick's ocxqmail
(certainly nothing obvious to me about the headers being wrong)
2) trapped most (maybe all) mailing list posts
I just turned it on again and it immediately started trapping imail forum
posts.
I'll
65 matches
Mail list logo
