-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
"Kai Schaetzl" writes:Kenneth Porter wrote on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:55:04 -0800:Since the Message-ID is supposed to be added by the server if the MUA omits
it, what servers are these clients using that fail to add the ID?
The problem is not the omission of the MID on the server. It's the omission of
the MID on the client.
Well, it is partly -- a server should always add a MID if one is not present (and most do).
(Especially given getting MS to change this will be impossible unless you're a 30,000-seat customer. ;)
Well, I for one will do my part by making sure that mail from 30,000 seat customers sent with Outlook '03 get the full three points they deserve for b0rking up message-id. If enough Citi mail gets tagged as spam, I think MSFT will get angry calls. When messages are tagged my SA I will even send them on to these large companies with a note that they have broken their message-id and until they fix it Spamassassin installs all over the world will be classifying their mail, properly, as spammish.
What should NOT be done is to LOWER the score, or write some special case rule to reward MSFT for their idiocy. They should have, as the RFC said, "Considered the consequences."
The 3.0 is enough to push a "mostly spammy" looking email from some bank into the autolearn=spam category. And yes, that's a good thing.
--
"Here comes sunrise. Yeah, here's your sunrise. I used to hide from the sun, tried to live my whole life underground, why'd you have to rise and ruin all my fun? Just turn over; close the curtains on the day."
