Re: Clearly bogus false positives -- on "abuse" contact point, no less Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>>  
>>>
>>> Depends on whether you equate bare domains with URL's, I suppose.
>> If MUA's equate them with URLs, spammers will use this, and 
>> SpamAssassin will use it.
>
> There is only so much braindeath in UA's that you can bend the rules 
> for.  Clearly, this involves breaking them.
Erm.. What rule does this actually break? Is there a rule in an RFC 
somewhere specifying you MUST not interpret bare domains as URIs in text 
emails?

Besides, when this "braindeath" is more the norm than the exception, 
it's a de facto standard. Particularly in the absence of any rules 
against it.

*EVERY* graphical MUA I've used in the past 10 years does this. 
Thunderbird, Outlook, Groupwise, Eudora, they all do it. I'm sure there 
are MUAs that don't, but there's an awful lot that do. Most webmails 
seem to do it too. Outlook web access, Comcast and Yahoo all do, but 
I'll concede that Verizon's webmail doesn't.


