On 2021-11-18 at 09:53:38 UTC-0500 (Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:53:38 -0500) Matt Corallo via Exim-users <[email protected]> is rumored to have said:
Same, I'd think, but according to the SpamAssassin folks its incorrect.
I do not think that anyone involved with the SA project said anything Exim did was "incorrect." If my discussion of this on the SA Users list sounded like I was saying that, it was unintentional.
The Received header created by Exim in the example that you provided were *interpreted by SA* as indicating that there was no rDNS for the SMTP client. That's a bit surprising, given that SA and Exim have coexisted for many years and the resulting SA rule hits (RDNS_NONE and others) can be very costly. I have not yet examined this in depth but given the history of SA in parsing Received headers, I expect that we will have a fix in the next release.
As always with SA: patches are welcome. Also welcome, short of a patch, would be clues about how to detect in an Exim-written Received header when a SMTP client IP has no rDNS or the rDNS name doesn't resolve to the client IP.
-- Bill Cole [email protected] or [email protected] (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
