[Mimedefang] Message header madness - was Re: SPF Usefulness (was Re: SNARE spam detection)

[-]

--- On Fri, 7/31/09, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Outlook's explanation is wrong.  From RFC 2822:

I know it's not as precise as it should be, but remember we're dealing with Microsoft - a delusional company that regularly thinks it can do its own thing and everyone else will conform to them.

> > 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.

Considering that the Reply-To header is supposed to be different than the From header, the difference itself isn't significant information.  Now, WHERE that reply-to redirects replies is significant info., especially when the domain part of that mailbox is repeated in a URL in the message body.