On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, John Horne wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 12:42 +0000, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Steve Kemp wrote:
> >
> > > On the other hand I've had good success rejecting messages with
> > > no Date header - as that MUST be present...
> >
> > I've often wondered whether to bother with that. SA assigns a couple of
> > points for it, but there is certainly more justification for rejecting
> > outright on that basis. Nearly 500 hits on SA's MISSING_DATE rule today
> > ...
> >
> As far as I can see SA (3.2.5) currently assigns this a very low score:
>
> score MISSING_DATE 0.001 # n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
> score MISSING_MID 0.001 # n=1 n=2 n=3
>
> Even when there are no headers present SA seems to score low:
>
> meta NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE (MISSING_DATE && MISSING_HEADERS &&
> NO_RECEIVED && NO_RELAYS && MISSING_MID)
> score NO_HEADERS_MESSAGE 0.001
>
> Perhaps literally increasing the score of MISSING_DATE to a couple of
> points would make a difference.
I stand corrected: in fact it turns out this is exactly what I had done,
back in the mists of time ... !
Might still move it to an SMTP-time check though ... although a cursory
glance at today's matches show that the message "Your latest statement is
available online" from DigitalBanking@??? would match.
How lame.
Jethro.
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
