[8<] > So, given that you'll start with a significant strike against you (3+ > points, IIRC), make sure you're not otherwise spammy. That .biz domain > will count another few points against you. You could sign up for habeas, > and this is exactly the sort of situation it's meant for, I believe. > Says "Although I send from a spammy domain, this is NOT spam and I'm > willing to risk financial penalties if I voilate this trust." That's why > I still continue to give a negative score to habeas-tagged messages.
Rest assured that I will, I actually paid some good money for my Office pack and not that I'm a Windows lover, but software availability makes me stay for now. I guess I could revert to Outlook XP (2002), but it doesn't feel 'right' to do it. Much of my work demand the integration with other Office apps, but I could do a search for other mail clients that can do the same, if there are any. > Quoting the article you cited: > > --- cut here --- cut here --- > > Also, RFC 2821 <http://www.faqs.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt> allows the first > > or last SMTP server in the chain to add a Message-Id if none is > > present, but there are still many RFC-compliant SMTP servers out > > there which do not do so, and the client has absolutely no guarantees > > that a message will get a Message-Id header - and IMHO, every > > message should have one. > --- cut here --- cut here --- > > Well, there's another fix. Get your server admin to fix it for you? I'm my own server admin, but frankly I'm not (yet) aware of how I could fix it? Anders Norrbring
