Outlook should not, I believe, delete headers or reorder them.

[MatthewPollock]

Outlook 2007 makes it difficult to trace spam messages.

It reorders the received headers, making them untrustworthy, as well as
deleting other headers - including X-headers! - which may mean that some
valuable information needed by ISPs/hosting companies is lost.

Outlook also makes it difficult to post BOTH headers AND content to spam
policing sites. This is very inconvenient.

It would be great if Microsoft could be more cooperative with the anti-Spam
community.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...e3b1264a1&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

 

[VanguardLH]

Outlook 2007 makes it difficult to trace spam messages.

It reorders the received headers, making them untrustworthy, as well as
deleting other headers - including X-headers! - which may mean that some
valuable information needed by ISPs/hosting companies is lost.

Outlook also makes it difficult to post BOTH headers AND content to spam
policing sites. This is very inconvenient.

It would be great if Microsoft could be more cooperative with the anti-Spam
community.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...e3b1264a1&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

This has been brought up previously by the operators of the SpamCop service
and Microsoft got informed. As to whether or not Microsoft does anything is
up to them. Personally I would like them to keep a *raw* copy of the e-mail
without any parsing into fields into records in their PST database (i.e.,
keep a full and integrated raw copy of the e-mail). This is often needed
when working with anti-spam or blacklist services. It would also eliminate
problems in how Outlook parses the headers, like when they become long,
especially after something has added a slew of tab characters within a
header.

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10245

Because no copy of the raw source for an e-mail (i.e., the *actual* received
e-mail and not how Outlook stores it), I have, in the past, use anti-spam
software that retained a copy of the received e-mails (it ran as a proxy
before Outlook got a hold of the e-mail and mangled it after parsing into
its database records). Currently I configure Outlook when using POP to
"leave a copy of message on server" along with having Outlook delete the old
retrieved e-mails after 15 days. That way, I can use the webmail interface
to my account to select a "raw" view mode to show the actual e-mail and copy
that when reporting or forwarding a copy. It's pretty bad when the webmail
interface to an e-mail account provides some functionality which is not
possible in Outlook. I suppose I could also have Outlook Express running in
tandem since it lets me see the raw source of an e-mail.

 

[David C. Holley]

Would be nice if you could right click on a message and send it to an
spam-prevention organization for the sake analyzing it...

 

[VanguardLH]

Would be nice if you could right click on a message and send it to an
spam-prevention organization for the sake analyzing it...

Well, you can forward it to SpamCop (but the problems regarding the
reordering of the Received headers is noted herein). You could copy and
paste the raw source of the e-mail into SpamCop's reporting form. Alas,
with Outlook, you have to view the headers, copy and paste those, and then
copy and paste the body (but Outlook doesn't have a raw view so PocketKnife
Peek is probably better as an add-in).

There is an OLSpamCop add-in for Outlook (http://www.olspamcop.org/). I
remember using it for awhile but gave up on it, perhaps because of using
Outlook as the e-mail client with its reparsing of an e-mail into records
inside its database and never being able to see the actual e-mail as it was
delivered into your mailbox.

Nowadays I just use SpamCop's reporting form and copy the headers and then
copy the body into their form. I don't believe the Received headers get
rearranged when Outlook parses a received e-mail but only when it forwards
it as an attachment. I also configure Outlook to "leave message on server"
(for POP accounts since I don't like using Outlook for IMAP access) along
with the option to delete the received e-mails after 15 days. So besides
giving SpamCop a copy of the spam (be sure you are actually reporting spam
and not just unwanted e-mails), I can go to the webmail interface for my
account and use their "Report As Spam" button to get their server-side spam
filter updated.

While SpamCop may send an abuse report to the source e-mail provider for a
received spam, the primary purpose of reporting spam to them is to get their
blacklist updated. One user report won't get a spam source blacklisted as
that would be unfair, especially considering some of the boobs that think
they can identify spam and haven't a clue how to trace through the Received
headers to ensure SpamCop is sending the abuse report to the correct source.
They also have their spamtraps. Of course, to utilitize these blacklists
means you need to use a mail server or anti-spam program that uses them. I
prefer using Spamhaus first (SBL+XBL but not necessarily their XEN list) and
then follow with SpamCop's blacklist. However, my ISP and other e-mail
providers have been doing so well with spam filtering that I no longer use a
local anti-spam filter (which uses those blacklists). Plus I've grown into
using aliases (or aliased disposable accounts) when divulging an e-mail
address to unknown or untrusted recipients.