On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:22:20 -0600 Philip Prindeville <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
> I’m getting a lot of messages from head-hunters, my wife’s auto > dealership, etc. that look like they’re being generated by legitimate > [sic] email campaigns, but they don’t have a message-id. Yes, we see that quite a bit. > RFC-5322 says the “Message-ID” SHOULD be present, and per Section > 3.6.4: [... big chunk snipped ...] It wasn't really necessary to quote that much of the RFC. > Does this warrant scoring the message severely? > I say “yes”. It's up to you. Are you trying to stop spam? Or punish those who ignore RFCs? Because the two goals are not necessarily the same. Here's some data. In our logs today, we have seen about 146,000 messages that lacked a Message-Id: header. Of those, about 74000 were caught as spam (due to other rules) and about 72000 were accepted. That doesn't mean that the 72000 accepted messages were definitely not spam, but I think we would have heard from our customers had a significant number been spam. So: No, I do not think lack of a Message-Id: header warrants scoring the message "severely". Maybe a point or so. Regards, Dianne.
