Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net> writes: > On 9/21/21 2:00 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> You are missing that SA is not a standards conformance test suite. It >> is a tool to guess if a message is spam. Bill said that some forms of >> Message-ID are correlated with spamminess. So whether the form that is >> correlated is compliant to the spec or not is not a relevant question. > > Fair enough. > > Rupert's original question was about syntax, which seems to be more > RFC based than convention applied by SpamAssassin. This seems > perfectly legitimate to me, just different than what I understood > Rupert's question to be about. > > Thank you for clarification.
It could be a fair question if a SA plugin/rule is trying to evaluate "is this field correct according to the standards", and gets that wrong, as a separate issue from "is it a clue of spam". I mean that a rule that is "MESSAGE_ID_SYNTAX_ERROR" is buggy even if it fires on spammy but legit message ids, but that the same rule called "MESSAGE_ID_IS_ICKY" isn't buggy. As a separate comment, I didn't go read the RFC, but my quick reaction about the message-id values with IPv6 literals with embedded IPv4 addresses was: these are not reasonable values, and reasonable software would not emit them. So to me, the question of whether they are technically compliant was not likely to be that important, within the context of spam filtering. Greg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
