Marc Sherman wrote:
> Bill Hacker wrote:
>
>>
>> But what is important here is also that Exim appears to NOT have
>> been set to act on the missing message-id header in this case - nor
>> SpamAssassin.
>>
>> This appears to be a case of the T-Bird MUA *on it's own* tagging as
>> junk.
>
>
> No, Bill, you've misunderstood the OP's scenario. Thunderbird and
> Outlook are the _sending_ MUAs.
Given. But yes, I had read it that they were also the *receiving* MUA's.
> Exim is the _sending_ MTA. Hotmail.com
> is the recipient MTA and MUA. Hotmail is spam-binning the message sent
> by Outlook, and the OP can't figure out why.
>
As the spam score was actually numerically negative, it then appears that
Hotmail (still Qmail?) might be applying a check for the missing message-id
> So far, we've identified two very plausible differences between the two
> messaages which Hotmail could be acting on. We know that Hotmail uses
> Sender ID, which obeys SPF records. We also know that Hotmail uses a
> number of poorly documented spam filter heuristics, which could be
> noticing the missing Message-ID, so that's something the OP should fix
> as well.
ACK. Nothing else really stands out.
Tho' Hotmail and SPF sound like an accident in search of a place to
occur.. ;-)
>
>> IMNSHO, *this* case is just not an Exim issue.
>
>
> I certainly agree with you on this one, with the small exception that
> the OP should definitely configure submission mode for his authenticated
> and local submissions, to solve the Message-ID problem.
Agree that.
Falls into the 'we shouldn't ever have to modify..' category.
But with Micro-whatzit at large in the body politic, 'What's a Mother to
do?'
We considered adding the missing 'message-id' header here.
Fortunately, our vanishingly small Outlook user base made 'download a
proper MUA'
an enforceable - and better- alternative all around.
Inbound is another story entirely, so we no longer check for message-id.
