spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Quinn <>
Subject Re: The word on messages w/ no Message-Id
Date Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:32:07 GMT
On 9/28/2015 2:22 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>     Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message
>     SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.  Furthermore, reply messages
>     SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields as appropriate
>     and as described below.
This is much more plain-english and clearly says SHOULD, so my 
interpretation of the rest would be what MUST be done IF "Message-ID" is 
present. In any event, RFC compliance is orthogonal to being spam or ham 
and at the end of the day, SA is an "I don't want this email" spam 
classifier and not an RFC validator.

If you don't want to be getting those emails, they are spam and you 
should score it something reasonable that doesn't prevent you getting 
other desired messages. While I don't have any specific examples of ham 
without Message-ID, it's not a stretch to imagine they exist. I 
personally wouldn't write that rule.

View raw message