> From: Sam Michaels
> On 1/9/06, Jethro R Binks <jethro.binks@???> wrote:
> >
> > Recognising that Date: and From: are required by RFC2822, I
> can't see that
> > the above would be an 'unsafe' test .. can anyone else see
> any potential
> > difficulties?
>
>
> That was part of my spam checks but had to disable it because
> Microsoft
> Outlook is not RFC compliant in that respect. I haven't
> actually checked to
> see where it's failing, but one of these directives--although
> correct RFC
> wise--will bounce legit mails from Outlook:
>
> deny
> message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard
> log_message = message headers fail syntax check
> !verify = header_syntax
>
> deny
> message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard
> log_message = missing message headers
> !hosts = +relay_from_hosts
> !senders = :
> condition = ${if or {{!def:h_Message-ID:}{!def:h_Date:}}
> {true}{false}}
>
> Never bounces email from any other client...only MS Outlook.
My suggestion is that such similar messages always be
given a unique identifier (suffix) so that they can
be disambiguated:
message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard (syntax)
message = Your message does not conform to RFC2822 standard (missing)
Too often, I found that similar problems were
indistinguishable and thus started using keywords
or sequential numbered IDs on such messages.
--
Herb
