Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, lanz@fowi.ethz.ch wrote:

> spam.el does not find the name of the blackhole server if the name
> of the server is - within the received header field - not enclosed
> with [] parantheses. But this seems to be quite often the case.
> 
> I know nothing about internet header field standards. Are the []
> paranthesis required? Do we find too many (or even wrong) host names
> if spam-check-blackholes would not require these parantheses
> surrounding a host name? For shure, I get many mail messages. where
> the host name of the sender is not in the [] parantheses, but
> instead often (allways?) in () parantheses as in this example from
> today:
> 
> Received: (qmail 17288 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000
> Delivered-To: adrian.lanz@wsl.ch Received: (qmail 17282 invoked by
> uid 154); 20 Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000 Received: from
> d.rouse_gt@di-net.ru by mail by uid 151 with qmail-scanner-1.10
> (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4298. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.98984 secs); 20
> Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inbox.lv)
> (211.44.152.166) by 0 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 03:52:50 -0000

That's an excellent question, unfortunately I don't know the answer.
Lars wrote the original code to check the blackholes, and I'll be
happy to add whatever regexp is necessary - but let's make sure it's
the correct one.  If anyone knows for sure, or wants to point me to a
relevant standard (I don't know of such a thing) I would appreciate
the information.

Thanks
Ted