https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6535
--- Comment #9 from Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> 2011-01-19 15:21:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > However - this is how those particular DNSBLs (and SA) was designed; it needs > to be able to parse the relevant Received headers and add the necessary > metadata for rules to match on. Using IPs from anything but the last received header for RBLs should likely be avoided. I might be convinced otherwise but while reading this bug, I haven't come up with any good reasons to do so. > Without SA parsing this header; I *can't* write a rule or plug-in to get this > IP address out of the X-Spam-Relays-* metadata. While I agree, I'm not sure how useful that IP will be to do anything with. We know that IPs are compromised. And we know that's why people use authentication. It's also one of the reasons that I disagree with Barracuda's recommendation to use "deep header parsing". It's the same thing as not using last-external relay and we know it has FPs especially due to DHCP pools. > The other problem here is how to handle these then? They're likely phished or > compromised accounts. Unfortunately, the only things that come to mind are to a) File a complaint with Yahoo! abuse and b) focus on content filtering. I hope you read what I wrote a comment ago that your patch sparked an issue that is much larger than just your patch. Regards, KAM -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
