I'm having problems with SA provided by debian, version 3.1.7-1.
I run spamc from /etc/procmail. spamd is run with `-x --max-children 5'.
Anyway, the problem is, messages are classified as EMPTY_MESSAGE, which
has description of `Message appears to have no textual parts and no
Subject: text', which is totaly untrue.
IT happens with OE mails (didn't notice other cases, but it doesn't mean
it doesn't happen).
Below I include some headers and part of the body of the message.
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-kruk (2006-10-05) on
terminator.rdc.pl
X-Spam-Level: ******
X-Spam-RELAY: PL PL
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_95,EMPTY_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=no version=3.1.7-kruk
X-Spam-Report:
* 3.0 BAYES_95 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 95 to 99%
* [score: 0.9876]
* 1.6 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
bl.spamcop.net
* [Blocked - see
<http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?83.31.218.211>]
* 2.3 EMPTY_MESSAGE Message appears to have no textual parts
and no
* Subject: text
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C73FAB.89507F20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
Thread-Index: Acc/oc3l3FOyCFz4SuCWP7JdZIWzwwAAG/Ug
Content-Length: 294039
Lines: 4415
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C73FAB.89507F20
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001C_01C73FAB.89507F20"
------=_NextPart_001_001C_01C73FAB.89507F20
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_002_001D_01C73FAB.89507F20"
------=_NextPart_002_001D_01C73FAB.89507F20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[cut... some text]
------=_NextPart_002_001D_01C73FAB.89507F20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
------=_NextPart_002_001D_01C73FAB.89507F20--
[... and so on, there were more attachments...]
As you can see, there is clearly a text/plain part. But I'm not sure if
it is a possible SA bug (would be kinda unbelievable tho that noone
noticed it before) or client error in preparation of the message.
