Hello!
I have two different mails with nearly identical rule hits. On with
TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY hit and one without.
Can one please explain to me why message A gets TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY
and why message B didn't?
Message A:
--cut
Return-Path: <custo...@dmsserver.de>
X-Original-To: martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de
Delivered-To: martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de
Received: from venus.esw.cps-net.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C5020060D
for <martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:43
+0200 (CEST)
Received: by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix, from userid 110)
id 8F3A1200701; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
venus.esw.cps-net.de
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,
TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Received: from fs-srv-03.fs-ipnet.de (fs-srv-00.fs-ipnet.de [5.9.20.133])
by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3F520060D
for <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:43 +0200
(CEST)
Received-SPF: None (no SPF record) identity=mailfrom;
client-ip=78.46.66.100; helo=root5.cps-server.de;
envelope-from=custo...@dmsserver.de; receiver=martin.fer...@fernausoft.de
Received: from root5.cps-server.de
(static.100.66.46.78.clients.your-server.de [78.46.66.100])
by fs-srv-03.fs-ipnet.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F06C2219AB
for <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:43 +0200
(CEST)
Received: from mfe.esw-cps-net.de (europa.fs-ipnet.de [46.252.143.122])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by root5.cps-server.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5BCB96151
for <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:43 +0200
(CEST)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: "custo...@dmsserver.de" <custo...@dmsserver.de>
To: martin.fer...@fernausoft.de
Message-ID: <1848999625.5.1433844823725@mfe>
Subject: DMSServer Information von Subsystem: TestMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_Part_2_207789126.1433844820251"
X-FS-KDNR: 10203
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
--cut
Message B:
--cut
Return-Path: <nore...@fiat.com>
X-Original-To: martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de
Delivered-To: martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de
Received: from venus.esw.cps-net.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34309200836
for <martin.fer...@venus.esw.cps-net.de>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:10:47
+0200 (CEST)
Received: by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix, from userid 110)
id 29604200D03; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:10:47 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
venus.esw.cps-net.de
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG,MIME_HTML_ONLY,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no
version=3.3.2
Received: from fs-srv-03.fs-ipnet.de (fs-srv-00.fs-ipnet.de [5.9.20.133])
by venus.esw.cps-net.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD95200836
for <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:10:46 +0200
(CEST)
Received-SPF: None (no SPF record) identity=mailfrom;
client-ip=129.35.118.116; helo=mx2.ex2007.fiatgroup.com;
envelope-from=nore...@fiat.com; receiver=martin.fer...@fernausoft.de
Received: from mx2.ex2007.fiatgroup.com (mx1.ex2007.fiatgroup.com
[129.35.118.116])
by fs-srv-03.fs-ipnet.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FEE8221432
for <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:11:52 +0200
(CEST)
Received: from prhu04.fgremc.it (151.92.204.60) by mx1.ex2007.fiatgroup.com
(151.88.80.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 8
Jun 2015
16:10:51 +0200
Received: from aittor16msxp010.fiatauto.com (10.12.7.18) by prhu04.fgremc.it
(151.92.204.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 8 Jun 2015
16:10:51 +0200
Received: from ittrn1s3vm69 (unknown [10.12.7.1]) by
aittor16msxp010.fiatauto.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C813C61A8E for
<martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:09:52 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: NOREPLY <nore...@fiat.com>
To: martin.fer...@fernausoft.de
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:10:51 +0200
Subject: Request
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Message-ID: <51c3bd5f-c11b-4659-8679-400857e2f...@prhu04.fgremc.it>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
--cut
As you can see, message A gets higher rating because of
TO_NO_BRKTS_HTML_ONLY. But for both messages the "To" is identical and
both mails only have HTML content.
The reason why I ask is because message A is generated by a piece of
software from me and sometimes those messages are marked as spam
(because they sometimes get DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 and XPRIO with 1.0 points
each). I try to understand why my "To" is so wrong and if it is 'better'
to change the software to always produce
To: "martin.fer...@fernausoft.de" <martin.fer...@fernausoft.de>
just to get rid of this.
Is it always a better idea to generate the To-Line like this even if I
have no real name for the receiver?
Thanks and regards
Martin
