Bob Apthorpe wrote: > The Outlook missing-Message-Id problem really needs to be fixed because > in this case the RFCs are very clear that 'SHOULD' means 'SHALL.'
How do you figure? The meaning of "SHOULD" in an RFC has been pretty clear for a few decades now... if the RFC is broken, then the RFC is broken, but it sounds like Outlook complies. Not to mention the fact that SA filters for spam, not RFC compliance. Even assuming arguendo that Outlook *isn't* complying with the RFC, if a large volume of ham is generated by clients that break the RFC, then that particular breakage is obviously not good evidence of spamming. Jay Levitt
