Yes, I do get the "spoofed header" warnings with the problematic messages. And
no, I did not change the HEADER_NAME macro in source code :-)
Here are the config snippets:
main.cf:
-------------------------------------------------------
smtpd_milters =
inet:127.0.0.1:12345,
# unix:/var/run/dkim-filter/dkim-filter.sock,
unix:/var/run/clamav/clamav-milter.ctl
milter_default_action = accept
-------------------------------------------------------
/etc/default/spfmilter:
-------------------------------------------------------
DAEMON_OPTS="-l a:master.debian.org"
NO_MACROS_CHECK=1
SOCKET="inet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" # listen just on loopback on port 12345
-------------------------------------------------------
If you'd like to see complete configs, I can send them to you privately.
The only other non-standard thing I can think of is libspf0, patched for
#392927 and #464029 (interdiff attached), but I don't think this matters.
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216
diff -u libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3/debian/changelog libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3/debian/changelog
--- libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3/debian/changelog
+++ libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+libspf (0.999-1.0.0-p3-3.0.sl.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Patched to avoid #392927
+ * Patched to avoid #464029
+
+ -- Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:41:00 +0000
+
libspf (0.999-1.0.0-p3-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Fixed debian/rules file syntax (closes: #353857)
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3.orig/src/libspf/main.c
+++ libspf-0.999-1.0.0-p3/src/libspf/main.c
@@ -1683,7 +1683,8 @@
xfree(p->from);
}
- if (p->spf_rlevel > 0)
+ if ((p->spf_rlevel > 0) &&
+ (p->current_domain != p->original_domain))
{
xfree(p->current_domain);
}
@@ -1830,6 +1831,11 @@
xvprintf("local-part: [%s]; domain: [%s]; sender: [%s]\n",
p->local_part, p->current_domain, p->from);
+ /*
+ * We need to reset this, otherwise we'll hit the recursion limit after N rejected MAIL FROMs.
+ */
+ p->spf_rlevel = 0;
+
return(SPF_TRUE);
}
only in patch2:
unchanged:
