Bug 2239 - FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK false-positive on MS Outlook 2003
Summary: FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK false-positive on MS Outlook 2003
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1970
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Rules (show other bugs)
Version: 2.55
Hardware: All All
: P2 major
Target Milestone: 2.61
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 2238 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-07-17 23:46 UTC by Andy
Modified: 2003-07-23 04:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Outlook 2003b2 Headers text/plain None Andy [NoCLA]
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andy 2003-07-17 23:46:33 UTC 
FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK is constantly false-positive on the messages sent from MS
Outlook 2003 beta2 e-mail client (Office 2003 beta2).

2003's headers:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 11.0.4920
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

since this rule is hi-scored, most messages are given 5+ and are considered to
be spam.

fix it please. that's a serious problem.
thank you.
Comment 1 Andy 2003-07-17 23:52:47 UTC 
Created attachment 1169 [details]
Outlook 2003b2 Headers 

btw have a look how did it score!

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-93.9 required=5.0
	tests=BASE64_ENC_TEXT,FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,IN_REP_TO,
	      MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	version=2.55

it returned to me although the score is <0 !!!!
how could that be????
Comment 2 Malte S. Stretz 2003-07-21 09:48:21 UTC 
*** Bug 2238 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Malte S. Stretz 2003-07-21 09:50:34 UTC 
from bug 2238: 
| A regexp that works for the message ID in Outlook 11 is: 
| 
| /^<[0-9]{14}\.[A-Za-z0-9]{11}\@\S+>$/m 
  
But that's a different pattern than the one in the attached headers. Does the 
beta maybe have different message-ids? (That one with auto-... looks somehow 
weird.) 
 
And should this be fixed for 2.60?
Comment 4 Henry James 2003-07-22 11:41:25 UTC 
This is a duplicated of #1970
Comment 5 Malte S. Stretz 2003-07-23 12:06:00 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1970 ***