From: "Andreas Pettersson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I need some help with understanding why some of the below rules
triggered on these headers..
Received: from baym-sm1.msgr.hotmail.com ([207.46.1.190])
by mail.mydomain.com with esmtp
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1GJcP7-00063q-JH
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:47:53 +0200
Received: from mail pickup service by baym-sm1.msgr.hotmail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:47:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_2QAIHCIKEOG.9E6CG57B"
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:41:39 Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-MSMessengerInvitationMailTemplateVersion: 2.9.12.5.0.02
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822)
0.8 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date
2.3 FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD Forged hotmail.com 'Received:' header found
0.3 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
Why does SA 3.1.3 think that the hotmail.com Received header is forged?
As far as I can see it seems alright..
"Pacific Daylight Time" is perhaps not the right way to describe the
timezone, or is it?
It is not. And the bad date format is usually a very good spamsign.
Someboty ought to beat them about the virtual head and shoulders to
get it fixed. Of course, if they don't care about the issue why should
we care about them?
And "Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary", what's that by the way?
A MINE boundary declaration that is in a format that is typically
spam. Maybe the used a spam engine to send their invitations?
{^_^}
