Am So, den 11.01.2004 schrieb Wayne Topa um 00:56: > Joerg Rossdeutscher([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > > Am Sa, den 10.01.2004 schrieb Wayne Topa um 19:52:
> > > If you remove the Message-Id: you might run into some problems. I > > > have found that a lot of spam 'does not' include that header. > > > > That will not happen, since every mailserver that gets a mail in his > > fingers is adviced to generate an ID if missing. > > Thats right, and my point is: > I find that when mail, without a Message-Id:, is received by my ISP, > 'they' add that header. So if I find a Message-Id with my ISP in that > header, its deleted. I have not had a false positive using that rule. > It's been working now for 3 months and catches an average of 10 spam > mails per day. Certainly you can filter what you want to - but you're taking people the chance away to write a valid MsgID. The background is: In RFC is written you're MsgID must be globally unique. So this can only be done on a mailserver, since two, three, four... clients don't communicate IDs. That's difficult enough, but even worse: evolution doesn't let you configure the domain-part of the MsgID, so i.e. my messages always have "@local". Half the world uses that. :-( So, the correct behaviour would be to send my messages without an ID. My providers mailserver would generate a guaranteed unique one. Bye, Ratti -- -o) fontlinge | Font management for Linux | Schriftenverwaltung in Linux /\\ http://freshmeat.net/projects/fontlinge/ _\_V http://www.gesindel.de https://sourceforge.net/projects/fontlinge/
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil