DavidT Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Not sure how long this has been going on, but when a message my wife sent to herself wound up in her Held folder, I analyzed the headers and found that the following Spamassassin rule had fired: MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT So, looking at the Message-ID generated by the SpamCop webmail system, I saw multiple [at] symbols, which apparently isn't allowed by RFC 2822 sec 3.6.4. Here's a link to the SA Wiki article on this: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT and here's a sample Message-ID from a message I sent to myself: Message-ID: <20080602050631.9j8hdrb6hws84044-gbccvat[at]fcnzpbc.arg[at]webmail.spamcop.net> (The real one had true "at" symbols, but this forum software has been tweaked to replace them with "[at]") The problematic Message-ID is adding a score of 1.2 to messages we send, which is significant, and when combined with other possible attributes, might cause our messages to be dumped or trapped. This needs a "JT fix" ASAP, IMO, so I'll also email Support. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 ...found that the following Spamassassin rule had fired: MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT So, looking at the Message-ID generated by the SpamCop webmail system, I saw multiple [at] symbols, which apparently isn't allowed by RFC 2822 sec 3.6.4. Yes, certainly seem to be the case. Thanks for identifying this for us Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Easter Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 which apparently isn't allowed by RFC 2822 sec 3.6.4. I disagree. 2822 doesn't so define MID. Elaborated in news spamcop.mail including links to RFC. I would get rid of the SA rule if it causes more harm than good. It isn't based on 'fact'. -- Mike Easter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 I disagree. 2822 doesn't so define MID. Elaborated in news spamcop.mail including links to RFC. I would get rid of the SA rule if it causes more harm than good. It isn't based on 'fact'. However....right or wrong, the SA rule may be in use at numerous sites "out there" and it would therefore be in *our* best interest if JT jiggered the MID so that it didn't fire the rule. I'm not supporting the validity of the SA rule, but rather reporting on a negative consequence for SC email customers. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Good news on this: Trevor responded quickly, agreed that this was a bug, and he fixed it immediately. So the message IDs will now only have a single "at" symbol and won't trigger the SA test, here or anywhere else. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Good news on this: Trevor responded quickly, agreed that this was a bug, and he fixed it immediately. <snip> ...Nicely done, DT (and Trevor)! Based on this good news, I shall mark this thread as "Resolved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.