Re: Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM
From: *Vanguard* (no-email_at_no-spam.invalid)
Date: 02/14/04
- Next message: Jim Slager: "Support.com"
- Previous message: retros0000_at_comcast.net: "Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- In reply to: Denis: "Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- Next in thread: N. Miller: "Re: Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:21:05 -0600
"Denis" said in news:107be01c3f306$9423e6c0$a601280a@phx.gbl:
[snip]
> They usually say "does not conform to RFC822 minimum
> requirements" in the header, but Comcast refuses to block
> such SPAM.
Who is "they"? Another mail status message you get separately from your
incoming mail server? Some banner or pane in Outlook (that I've never seen)
declaring the mail's compliance against RFC 822 (which has been supplanted
by RFC 2822 and in which many of the headers you think might be required are
actually optional)? Within the body of the e-mail message itself? Just who
is "they"? What is "it" in the headers that isn't RFC 2822 compliant? If
you actually read RFC 2822, you'll find lots of "should" and "recommended"
statements which obviously do not mandate compliance to them. If you read
RFC 2821 regarding the message format, lots of header (that are inserted as
*data* by the *sender*) are optional, and again there are lots of "should"
and "recommended" statements.
- Next message: Jim Slager: "Support.com"
- Previous message: retros0000_at_comcast.net: "Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- In reply to: Denis: "Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- Next in thread: N. Miller: "Re: Outlook Express Jams on ONE single SPAM"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
