RE: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance

2003-12-05 Thread Mark Smith
BTW,
I forwarded this issue to a colleague, Sue Moser of Slipstick Systems
http://www.slipstick.com and Windows magazine contributor.

Mark

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.
 Scott Perry
 Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:19 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation
 for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance


 I have a customer who was having trouble with his messages sent to
 users on servers that use spam filters not being delivered.
 I had him
 send a message to me so I could see what tests it fails.  As some of
 you may have already guessed, he's got a new pc with Outlook
 2003 and
 the messages fail the spam headers test.  I informed him that among
 mail server and/or spamfilter administrators this is a known issue.
 So, he calls MS.  MS says it's OEM software, call the
 vendor.  Dell says I'm full of it.
 
 So...
 
 Would someone with more thorough and better understanding than mine
 please send me something (with permission to quote or I'd just lift
 from
 archives) that I can send to this customer?  I'm looking for
 what it is
 that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what RFC it is not
 conforming to.  He
 wants to then show it to Dell and request an exchange for
 Office 2002.

 It's really a Microsoft issue (it's a bug -- er, new
 feature -- in Outlook 2003), but they may have a special
 arrangement with Dell.  Microsoft had a few complaints from
 people using Outlook that their machine name was leaked in
 the Message-ID header.  Instead of ignoring the complaint, or
 making the host name used in the Message-ID: header
 configurable, they chose to remove the Message-ID: header.

 Microsoft is technically RFC-compliant, *if* they understand
 the consequences of what they did.  In order words, it is
 only RFC-compliant if accept the fact that the E-mail sent
 from Outlook 2003 may be marked as spam.

 Microsoft's position, from what we understand, is that they
 expect all mailservers to whitelist outgoing E-mail from
 Outlook 2003 users, and add the Message-ID: header.

 -Scott
 ---
 Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail
 mailservers.
 Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in
 mailserver vulnerability detection.
 Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day
 evaluation.

 ---
 [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
 type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be
 found at http://www.mail-archive.com.



---
[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
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.


RE: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance

2003-12-05 Thread Mark Smith
I'm assuming that this only happens with Outlook 2003 used with a
non-Exchange (POP3/IMAP/SMTP mode)?

Here are two headers from Outlook 2003 installed by Office 2003 Pro
Microsoft Volume Licensing (not OEM)

From Outlook/MAPI via Exchange 2003

-0-

Received: from us-inboundmx.blank.com [61.220.41.95] by popmail.domain2.com
with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-8.03) id AFB28130208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: testing
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: testing
Thread-Index: AcO7G6c5ASWwh2hOTRWz0b/pUSbfKw==
From: Mark E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Note: Weight: 0 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for spam.
X-Spam-Tests-Failed: Whitelisted
X-Spam-Prob: 0.169437
X-RCPT-TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: U
X-UIDL: 341408898

-0-

From Outlook/POP3/SMTP via iMail SMTP

-0-

Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from ussmtpin2.blank.com ([10.7.4.111]) by us-inboundmx.blank.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0);
 Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:53 -0500
Received: from popmail.domain2.com [16.196.89.161] by ussmtpin2.blank.com
with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-8.03) id A0B38CD0118; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:51 -0500
Received: from msmithd800xp [162.83.21.69] by popmail.domain2.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-8.03) id A0AF8330208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
From: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Testing from domain2
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Thread-Index: AcO7HD5aazFkluigRS2DXlE/jJeQ9w==
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam
[420e].
X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
(46)
X-Note: Weight: 3 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for spam.
X-RBL-Warning: WHITELISTFILE: Message failed WHITELISTFILE test (100)
X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-HELO: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-HELO test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
test (27)
X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
(37)
X-Note: Weight: -110 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
(www.netrends.com) for viruses and spam.
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 10:40:53.0729 (UTC)
FILETIME=[42002510:01C3BB1C]

-0-





 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.
 Scott Perry
 Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:19 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation
 for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance


 I have a customer who was having trouble with his messages sent to
 users on servers that use spam filters not being delivered.
 I had him
 send a message to me so I could see what tests it fails.  As some of
 you may have already guessed, he's got a new pc with Outlook
 2003 and
 the messages fail the spam headers test.  I informed him that among
 mail server and/or spamfilter administrators this is a known issue.
 So, he calls MS.  MS says it's OEM software, call the
 vendor.  Dell says I'm full of it.
 
 So...
 
 Would someone with more thorough and better understanding than mine
 please send me something (with permission to quote or I'd just lift
 from
 archives) that I can send to this customer?  I'm looking for
 what it is
 that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what RFC it is not
 conforming to.  He
 wants to then show it to Dell and request an exchange for
 Office 2002.

 It's really a Microsoft issue (it's a bug -- er, new
 feature -- in Outlook 2003), but they may have a special
 arrangement with Dell.  Microsoft had a few complaints from
 people using Outlook that their machine name was leaked in
 the Message-ID header.  Instead of ignoring the complaint, or
 making the host name used in the Message-ID: header
 configurable, they chose to remove the Message-ID: header.

 Microsoft is technically RFC-compliant, *if* they understand
 the consequences of what they did.  In order words, it is
 only RFC-compliant if accept the fact that the E-mail sent
 from Outlook 2003 may be marked as spam.

 Microsoft's position, from what we understand, is that they
 expect all mailservers to whitelist outgoing E-mail from
 Outlook 2003 users, and add the Message-ID: header.

 -Scott
 ---
 Declude JunkMail

RE: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance

2003-12-05 Thread Tyler Jensen
I installed a full retail copy of Office 2003 Professional and I have the
same issue. Missing headers.

Tyler

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Smith
 Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:48 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook
 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance


 I'm assuming that this only happens with Outlook 2003 used with a
 non-Exchange (POP3/IMAP/SMTP mode)?

 Here are two headers from Outlook 2003 installed by Office 2003 Pro
 Microsoft Volume Licensing (not OEM)

 From Outlook/MAPI via Exchange 2003

 -0-

 Received: from us-inboundmx.blank.com [61.220.41.95] by
 popmail.domain2.com
 with ESMTP
   (SMTPD32-8.03) id AFB28130208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain;
   charset=us-ascii
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 Subject: testing
 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:36:34 -0500
 Message-ID:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-MS-Has-Attach:
 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
 Thread-Topic: testing
 Thread-Index: AcO7G6c5ASWwh2hOTRWz0b/pUSbfKw==
 From: Mark E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-Note: Weight: 0 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
 (www.netrends.com) for spam.
 X-Spam-Tests-Failed: Whitelisted
 X-Spam-Prob: 0.169437
 X-RCPT-TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Status: U
 X-UIDL: 341408898

 -0-

 From Outlook/POP3/SMTP via iMail SMTP

 -0-

 Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
 Received: from ussmtpin2.blank.com ([10.7.4.111]) by
 us-inboundmx.blank.com
 with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0);
Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:53 -0500
 Received: from popmail.domain2.com [16.196.89.161] by ussmtpin2.blank.com
 with ESMTP
   (SMTPD32-8.03) id A0B38CD0118; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:51 -0500
 Received: from msmithd800xp [162.83.21.69] by popmail.domain2.com
 with ESMTP
   (SMTPD32-8.03) id A0AF8330208; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
 From: Mark Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Mark E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Testing from domain2
 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:40:47 -0500
 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
 Thread-Index: AcO7HD5aazFkluigRS2DXlE/jJeQ9w==
 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam
 [420e].
 X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
 X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
 test (27)
 X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
 (46)
 X-Note: Weight: 3 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
 (www.netrends.com) for spam.
 X-RBL-Warning: WHITELISTFILE: Message failed WHITELISTFILE test (100)
 X-RBL-Warning: MS-WHITE: Message failed MS-WHITE: 0.
 X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-HELO: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-HELO test (27)
 X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-MAILFROM
 test (27)
 X-RBL-Warning: TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS: Message failed TLD-TRUSTED-REVDNS test
 (37)
 X-Note: Weight: -110 - This E-mail was scanned by NETrends Systems
 (www.netrends.com) for viruses and spam.
 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 10:40:53.0729 (UTC)
 FILETIME=[42002510:01C3BB1C]

 -0-





  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.
  Scott Perry
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:19 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation
  for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance
 
 
  I have a customer who was having trouble with his messages sent to
  users on servers that use spam filters not being delivered.
  I had him
  send a message to me so I could see what tests it fails.  As some of
  you may have already guessed, he's got a new pc with Outlook
  2003 and
  the messages fail the spam headers test.  I informed him that among
  mail server and/or spamfilter administrators this is a known issue.
  So, he calls MS.  MS says it's OEM software, call the
  vendor.  Dell says I'm full of it.
  
  So...
  
  Would someone with more thorough and better understanding than mine
  please send me something (with permission to quote or I'd just lift
  from
  archives) that I can send to this customer?  I'm looking for
  what it is
  that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what RFC it is not
  conforming to.  He
  wants to then show it to Dell and request an exchange for
  Office 2002.
 
  It's really a Microsoft issue (it's a bug -- er, new
  feature -- in Outlook 2003), but they may have a special
  arrangement with Dell.  Microsoft had a few complaints from
  people using Outlook that their machine name was leaked in
  the Message-ID header.  Instead of ignoring the complaint, or
  making the host name used in the Message-ID: header
  configurable, they chose

[Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance

2003-12-04 Thread Katie La Salle-Lowery
Title: Message



Hi there, 


I have a customer 
who was having trouble with his messages sent to users on servers that use spam 
filters not being delivered. I had him send a message to me so I could see 
what tests it fails. As some of you may have already guessed, he's got a 
new pc with Outlook 2003 and the messages fail the spam headers test. I 
informed him that among mail server and/or spamfilter administrators this is a 
known issue. So, he calls MS. MS says it's OEM software, call the 
vendor. Dell says I'm full of it. 

So...

Would someone with 
more thorough and better understanding than mine please send me something (with 
permission to quote or I'd just lift from archives) that I can send to this 
customer? I'm looking for what it is that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what 
RFC it is not conforming to. He wants to then show it to Dell and request 
an exchange for Office 2002. 

I would much 
appreciate it. I'm sorry to make this issue that isn't really mine yours 
too. But, it might just be handy to have this kind of information on hand 
anyway as more people start using this product.

Thanks, 

Katie
(Who will try to 
stop gritting her teeth now.)



Re: [Declude.JunkMail] A little CMA documentation for Outlook 2003 RFC non-compliance 2003 RFC non-compliance

2003-12-04 Thread R. Scott Perry

I have a customer who was having trouble with his messages sent to users 
on servers that use spam filters not being delivered.  I had him send a 
message to me so I could see what tests it fails.  As some of you may have 
already guessed, he's got a new pc with Outlook 2003 and the messages fail 
the spam headers test.  I informed him that among mail server and/or 
spamfilter administrators this is a known issue.  So, he calls MS.  MS 
says it's OEM software, call the vendor.  Dell says I'm full of it.

So...

Would someone with more thorough and better understanding than mine please 
send me something (with permission to quote or I'd just lift from 
archives) that I can send to this customer?  I'm looking for what it is 
that Outlook 2003 does wrong and what RFC it is not conforming to.  He 
wants to then show it to Dell and request an exchange for Office 2002.
It's really a Microsoft issue (it's a bug -- er, new feature -- in 
Outlook 2003), but they may have a special arrangement with 
Dell.  Microsoft had a few complaints from people using Outlook that their 
machine name was leaked in the Message-ID header.  Instead of ignoring 
the complaint, or making the host name used in the Message-ID: header 
configurable, they chose to remove the Message-ID: header.

Microsoft is technically RFC-compliant, *if* they understand the 
consequences of what they did.  In order words, it is only RFC-compliant if 
accept the fact that the E-mail sent from Outlook 2003 may be marked as spam.

Microsoft's position, from what we understand, is that they expect all 
mailservers to whitelist outgoing E-mail from Outlook 2003 users, and add 
the Message-ID: header.

   -Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers.
Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver 
vulnerability detection.
Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation.

---
[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
type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail.  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.