Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 10:52 UTC

SpamScope / mail-parser

A tool that parses emails by enhancing the Python standard library, extracting all details into a comprehensive object.

PythonApache-2.0★ 455 stars⑂ 111 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#mail-analyzer #mail #mail-parser #python #python3 #outlook #docker-image #docker #mailparser #security

SpamScope/mail-parser holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (56/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met

Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps

Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable

Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended

Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas

At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution

Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SpamScopeOrganization

8 followers6 public repossince Aug 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	mail-parser	4.6.4	3,255,576	72	0 days ago	email forensics mail malware parser phishing security spam threat-detection

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

78Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18	Commit volume — 49 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	49
human_commit_share	0.99
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 39 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~46.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	39
latest_release_tag	4.6.4
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	46.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good

How it's scored

43.1/60	Stars — 455 stars
17/25	Forks — 111 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	111
stars	455
watchers	11
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 3,255,576 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	mail-parser
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	3,255,576
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

27At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	23
top_contributor_share	0.939

Issue & PR responsiveness

72Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
20.3/30	PR acceptance — 50/74 decided PRs merged
8.7/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	50
open_issues	0
closed_issues	98
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	4
prs_merged_30d	9
prs_decided_30d	11
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	24
first_time_authors_30d	5
first_time_prs_merged_30d	4
first_time_prs_decided_30d	6

Ownership & stewardship

69Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
6.9/25	Owner reach — 8 followers of SpamScope
18.2/25	Track record — 6 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	8
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	SpamScope
public_repos	6
account_age_days	3,645

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 72 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	mail-parser
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mail-parser
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	mail-analyzer, mail, mail-parser, python, python3, outlook, docker-image, docker, mailparser, security
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mail-parser
docs_site	https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mail-parser
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

45Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 11 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	22
affected_packages	7
assessed_packages	127
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 3, moderate 4
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 127 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

74Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

82Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/containerization-docker-best-practices.instructions.md, .github/instructions/github-actions-ci-cd-best-practices.instructions.md, .github/instructions/markdown.instructions.md, .github/instructions/python.instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.remnux.org/llms.txt)
22.1/40	Legible commit history — 41 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.remnux.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.414
agent_instruction_files	.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/containerization-docker-best-practices.instructions.md, .github/instructions/github-actions-ci-cd-best-practices.instructions.md, .github/instructions/markdown.instructions.md, .github/instructions/python.instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	52,601

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
8/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.04
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.01

Code legibility for models

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
50.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/12 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	108,424
source_files_sampled	12
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

455GitHub stars

23contributors

49commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

39releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:mail-parser@4.6.4; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 111 ⇿

0Stars

111Forks

32Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Major 4Minor 20Patch 7

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10

4.5aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-22 10:52 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	11 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 127

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 127 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	anyio	`4.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	backports-zstd	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	cfgv	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	colorclass	`2.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	compressed-rtf	`1.0.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.10.7`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.2`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`47.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	distlib	`0.4.3`	indirect
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	easygui	`0.98.3`	indirect
PyPI	ebcdic	`2.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	extract-msg	`0.56.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.19.1`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.0`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatch	`1.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	hatch	`1.17.1`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.27.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`1.31.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	hyperlink	`21.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.15`	indirect
PyPI	identify	`2.6.19`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`8.7.1`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	lark	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`3.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`10.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	msoffcrypto-tool	`5.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	msoffcrypto-tool	`6.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	nodeenv	`1.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	olefile	`0.47`	indirect
PyPI	oletools	`0.60.2`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pcodedmp	`1.2.6`	indirect
PyPI	pexpect	`4.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pre-commit	`4.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	ptyprocess	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`2.23`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-mock	`3.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-ordering	`0.6`	indirect
PyPI	python-discovery	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`44.0`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`45.0`	indirect
PyPI	red-black-tree-mod	`1.22`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.32.5`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rtfde	`0.1.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.3.3`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.8.4`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tomli-w	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.15.1`	indirect
PyPI	trove-classifiers	`2026.6.1.19`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`6.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	tzdata	`2026.3`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	tzlocal	`5.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	userpath	`1.9.2`	indirect
PyPI	uv	`0.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	virtualenv	`21.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	wheel	`0.47.0`	indirect
PyPI	win-unicode-console	`0.5`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`3.23.1`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	zstandard	`0.25.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 127 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
click	`8.1.8`	indirect	high	1	`8.3.3`
cryptography	`47.0.0`	indirect	high	7	`50.0.0`
urllib3	`2.6.3`	indirect	high	4	`2.7.0`
cryptography	`49.0.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`50.0.0`
filelock	`3.19.1`	indirect	moderate	4	`3.20.3`
pytest	`8.4.2`	indirect	moderate	2	`9.0.3`
requests	`2.32.5`	indirect	moderate	2	`2.33.0`

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records