untagged messages

[Ugo Bellavance]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Schmitt, Andy C - CIDD-2 [mailto:acschmitt at BPA.GOV]
> Envoyé : Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:43 PM
> À : MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Objet : Re: untagged messages
> 
> 
> This may be completely off base, since I don't know if you 
> already posted your network config, but are you delivering 
> directly to Unix accounts after MailScanner, or forwarding on 
> to an Exchange box on an internal network?
> 
> The reason why I ask is that here, we use MS Exchange for 
> internal mail, and it seems like headers get replaced at 
> random times by the words "Microsoft Mail Internet Headers 
> 2.0" followed by a sanitized version of headers, which still 
> shows the server route, but nothing useful such as 
> MailScanner headers. I've heard vague rumors as to why this 
> happens, but have not heard of anyone being able to fix it.
> 

Hmmm, I always see "Microsoft Mail Internet Headers 2.0,", but I never saw a message w/o MailScanner's headers, though.  But I don't receive a lot of messages.

Ugo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hermit921 [mailto:hermit921 at YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:18 AM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: untagged messages
> 
> 
> I am still trying to figure out why some messages don't get tagged by
> MailScanner 4-23, postfix 2.  Every email should get tagged 
> with at least
> one MailScanner header, but some don't.
> 
> I came up with an idea.  Is this feasible:
> Spammer sets up his client to use our mail server as his smtp
> gateway.  Should work for any message addressed to a user in 
> our domain,
> but he can't send mail outside.  So spammer addresses a message to
> usera at mydomain, with CC or BCC to userb, userc, userd, etc.  Now I get
> fuzzy....
> 
> One message appears here, postfix dumps it in the hold queue.  Postfix
> splits it up at the same time, so only the original message gets the
> MailScanner headers.  Since I can't track the original, I 
> can't verify the
> presence of headers.
> 
> Am I way off?
>