On Thursday, August 12, 2004, 5:51:43 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
I have a two-part question:
(1) header parsing issues...
I was reading a web site discussing an implementation of SURBL on the IceWarp web server (using a third party add-on). One person complained that there are too many false positives when submitting IPs and domains found in the header of the e-mail. They felt like ONLY the body of the message should be examined. I see good arguments both ways. For example, parsing the header can catch spam which was originally sent to one place, but then forwarded to another. On the other hand, actual affiliate URLs would only normally occur in the body of the message. Any thoughts or suggestions?
SURBLs should be used on message body URIs, not message headers. Though I can see some of the reasons for wanting to try on headers, they're really meant for URIs. Please do us a favor and let them know that. TIA.
(2) Another Possible FP...
This person was asked to give an example of a message which shouldn't have been blocked and which would have gone through if the header wasn't parsed. They provided an example which had the following line in the header:
Message-ID: 000b01c47f1a$e02f73e0$0200a8c0@MUNGED-callatg.com
The offending domain was MUNGED-callatg.com
Therefore, I must ask, could MUNGED-callatg.com be a FP? The reason I suspect so is because they mentioned that this company is a division of GE. Please check on this.
I've whitelisted:
atgi.net callatg.com advancedtelcom.com
All of which belong to the same legitimate company.
Jeff C.