LuKreme wrote:On Mar 25, 2004, at 8:29 AM, Bob George wrote:
> I worry more about the glee with which implementing rules and > measures to harass, annoy or otherwise attempt to modify the > behavior of others who use Microsoft products is undertaken under > the guise of stopping spam.
Well, there is the simple fact that the vast majority of spam comes from MSFT zombied machines running stealth SMTP servers to spew spam from millions of points, making the spam problem overwhelming.
How many of those are sent via Outlook?
How many of them are caused because of Outlook? No idea. A lot. They aren't SENT by outlook (that's not what I said). But the antipathy toward MSFT for creating and exacerbating the spam-zombie problem is certainly justified.
And what percentage of your GOOD mail is sent using Microsoft products?
I have no idea. Why would I even track that? If mail arrives in proper form with all the right headers and proper mime types I don't care what software generated it.
There are two issues here:
1) Outlook 2003 breaks the RFC by failing to include a Message-ID. MSFT did this deliberately without considering (as the RFC mandates) the consequences. One of the consequences is that any server running SA is going to assign 3.0 points to these messages.
Another consequence is that a lot of people using procmail recipes to filter mail without SA are going to detect the "forged" Message-ID and dump the mail.
None of this ever occurred to MSFT.
Some people think the solution is to lower the score and "cut Outlook 2003 a break" and I think this is a very bad idea.
2) Lots of people dislike MSFT.
These are SEPARATE issues.
--
BUGS: There is no conversion specification for the phase of the moon." strftime(3) man page
