https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7392
--- Comment #4 from Ariel Grin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to RW from comment #1) > You should be seeing both of those results per scan. The pass on ip4 is the > envelope sender result for itser.com.ar and the none result with "No > applicable sender policy" is the HELO result for rock.webserverns.com. > What's probably confusing you is that the two results are not logged in a > consistent order, and you have to look at the surrounding debug lines to > tell which is which. Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly before. The issue is that in one run of spamassasin, the result would be "result:none" and no SPF rules are hit, and on another run of spamassassin over the same mail, the result would be "result: pass" and the SPF_PASS would be hit. The results I attached before are not part of the same run, but each one of them is from a different run, and I checked at the surrounding lines, to make sure that the behaviour was failing randomly. I'm attaching the complete logs for both runs, one with "result: pass" and SPF_PASS rule hit, and another with "result: none" and no SPF rules hit at all. As you can see, in the first run the result is pass and SPF_PASS rule is hit, but in the second run over the same email, the result is none and no SPF rules are hit at all, so it is obvious that the SPF query is failing randomly, I just don't know why. As a preview, I'm showing you the test debug lines, where it can be seen that one test has the SPF_PASS and the other one does not have it. feb 14 09:11:59.006 [2908] dbg: check: tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS feb 14 09:14:35.118 [608] dbg: check: tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
