| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
> In <[email protected]> Bart Schaefer <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Mon, 21 Mar 1005 12:49:06 +0000, Lindsey <Charles> wrote:
> >>
> >> Message inserted directly at port 25 of mail.imc.org.
> >Came through to gmail with From: header intact.
> >Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk ([212.15.83.148])
> > by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2LEBVYw032021
> > for <[email protected]>; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:12:09 -0800 (PST)
> > (envelope-from [email protected])
> >Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> >Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1005 12:49:06 +0000
> >Subject: Test with From <> (3)
> >From: Charles Lindsey <>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> OK, so I seemed to have managed to get this test case past the list
> expander at imc.org, so we can wee what it does on a variety of routes
> after that (but my example with no From field at all seems to have been
> eaten at imc).
> So, the first question is:
> IS THERE ANYBODY WHO DID NOT RECEIVE THIS MESSAGE AT ALL?
I received it with the From: line intact.
> (Have to hold my own hand up here, but I shall poke around to see it it
> was lost on my system or whether Spamassassin ate it, or something).
Certain SpamAssassin fire because of this line, but that is not enough
to mark the message as spam unless you've either tweaked your rule
weights or have a very low numerical theshhold. FWIW, the line SA added
on my system was:
False ; 1.7 / 4.5 ; FORGED_RCVD_HELO,FROM_NO_LOWER,FROM_NO_USER
> I have recived 5 reports of successful arrival with the From: line
> received as sent. There were two reports of mangled display by reading
> agents:
> From: Lindsey <Charles>
> From: Unknown <unknown@unknown.
> Neither of which are show stoppers, since both were rendered as sent when
> "full headers" was called for.
I had no problem displaying the message either.
Ned