FYI, Microsoft trains the Outlook spam filter with samples submitted via
Hotmail.

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
:

Thanks Diane,

I don't have a SPAM filter, and don't plan to get one any time soon, unless
it's free. I do plan to write one, though eventually. It just surprises me
that the SPAM filtering in one of Microsoft's "flagship" applications is so
... cheesy. I am a big fan of Microsoft, and an MVP. But I wouldn't be doing
the company any favors if I was to ignore this sort of thing. I know they
read these newsgroups, so my hope is that I'll spark a little motivation!

In the meantime, I will use the negative logic Rule for keeping these
irritating blank emails out. Thanks for your help.

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.

"Diane Poremsky [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Blocked senders is one of the most useless ways to manage spam - they only
work if it's an address that sends often (like a newsletter you can't get
unsubscribed from). Use a rule to delete blank messages if the spam filter
is not catching them or get a better spam filter.

http://www.outlook-tips.net/archives/2004/20041018.htm

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"Kevin Spencer" wrote in message
...
I am using Outlook 2003, and recently installed the update that contains
the latest Junk email filters. It certainly improved the Junk email
collection. I combine the use of this with adding SPAM email addresses and
domains to my Blocked Senders list whenever they arrive. However, an
obvious SPAM regularly makes it through, and I'm wondering why Microsoft
seems to have overlooked this for so long.

The obvious SPAM is an email message with *all* of the following blank:
From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, and Body. There is header data, though. Here
is an example of the headers from one of these (recipient and innocent
server names obfuscated):

Return-Path:
Received: from centrmimpi02.***.net ([##.##.###.###])
by centrmmtai02.***.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP
id
20060618121714.ZWXD10025.centrmmtai02.***.net@cen trmimpi02.***.net
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:17:14 -0400
Received: from mail.******.com ([##.###.##.#])
by centrmimpi02.***.net with IMP
id n0CG1U00x06acko0000000
for ; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:18 -0400
Received: from SMTP32-FWD by takempis.com
(SMTP32) id A000008AC; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:35 -0500
Received: from esper.com [86.198.69.128] by mail.*****.com
(SMTPD32-7.07) id A3321A8200CA; Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:34 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:12:37 -0500

I would suggest that such obvious SPAM be filtered!

I was also unable to create my own Rule for deleting such emails, as the
Rules that use those fields do not allow for blanks.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

I recycle.
I send everything back to the planet it came from.