[Mimedefang] Message header madness - was Re: SPF Usefulness (was Re: SNARE spam detection)
David F. Skoll
dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Fri Jul 31 08:25:12 EDT 2009
Dieter Stussy wrote:
> Micro$oft Outlook Express makes it clear that it is to route replies
> to a mail box other than the mailbox account that originated them - in
> its help section.
Outlook's explanation is wrong. From RFC 2822:
The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
reply.
Note that in the absences of a Reply-To: field, replying to the From:
address is a SHOULD, not a MUST. So the truly paranoid may wish always
to include a Reply-To:
> but I stand by my view that a positive value (toward spaminess)
> should still be assigned when it is identical to the "From" header
> value.
That's not my experience. For some spams, especially phishing spams,
Reply-To: is very different because the sender wants to trick the
recipient into replying to a throwaway address even if the purported From:
address looks official.
Regards,
David.
More information about the MIMEDefang
mailing list