No subject = not spam?

[Michael Weber <mw...@alliednational.com>]

Here's a spam I got that was not flagged as spam.  It looks like SA
recognized it as spam, but because the headers had no subject field, the
subject line markup never happened.

Should SA add a subject header if none exists and the message needs to
be marked?

Merry Christmas!

-Michael



Return-path: <""...@snet.net>
Received: from web-2.alliednational.com
	([172.16.30.32])
	by mail.alliednational.com; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:09:20 -0600
Received: (from filter@localhost)
	by web-2.alliednational.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iBK89KJ20784;
	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:09:20 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: web-2.alliednational.com: filter set sender
to ""@snet.net using -f
Received: from pcp09216425pcs.rtchrd01.md.comcast.net (unknown
[172.16.30.253])
	by web-2.alliednational.com (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 9E795BBF7; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:09:19 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <20...@web-2.alliednational.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:09:19 -0600 (CST)
From: ""@snet.net
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on 
	web-2.alliednational.com
X-Spam-Report: 
	*  0.0 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
	*  1.4 L_T_COMBINED Addressed to "Undisclosed Recipients" or
equivalent
	*  1.3 UNDISC_RECIPS Valid-looking To "undisclosed-recipients"
	*  1.9 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
	*      [score: 1.0000]
	*  0.3 DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS RBL: Envelope sender in
whois.rfc-ignorant.org
	*  1.6 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in
postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	*  1.3 BODY_EMPTY BODY_EMPTY
	*  1.2 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=9.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_99,BODY_EMPTY,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS,L_T_COMBINED,MISSING_SUBJECT,
	NO_REAL_NAME,UNDISC_RECIPS autolearn=no version=3.0.1
X-Spam-Level: *********


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This communication and any 
attached or enclosed files may contain information 
that is privileged, confidential, proprietary and/or 
otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable 
law ("Confidential Information").  Any review, 
retransmission, publication, dissemination, 
distribution, forwarding, printing, copying, storing, saving 
or other use or disclosure of this communication and/or the 
Confidential Information, or taking any action in reliance 
thereon, by an individual or entity other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.  

This communication and the Confidential Information are 
intended solely for the use of the individual(s) and/or 
entity(ies) to which this communication is addressed. 
If you are not the intended recipient(s) (or responsible 
for delivery to said recipient(s)), please be advised 
that you have received this communication in error and 
have an obligation to promptly inform the sender by reply 
e-mail or facsimile and to permanently delete, shred or 
otherwise destroy, in its entirety, this original communication 
and all copies thereof, whether in electronic or hard copy format. 

Re: No subject = not spam?

[Marco van den Bovenkamp <ma...@linuxgoeroe.dhs.org>]

Michael Weber wrote:

> Should SA add a subject header if none exists and the message needs to
> be marked?

Yes, it should. And in 3.0.2 it does. One of the things fixed in there.

-- 

		Regards,

			Marco.