On 17 Sep 2025, at 12:30, Hans-Martin Mosner via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > Am 17.09.25 um 08:55 schrieb Arrigo Triulzi via mailop: >> Replying to my own message … >> >> On 16 Sep 2025, at 16:33, Arrigo Triulzi via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> >> wrote: >> >>> * the Message-Id is invalid >>> >> This is because they put a newline between the header ID and the header, e.g. >> >> Message-ID: >> CommentMentionWord-d5f9b97d-c66e-491a-a701-34847b35ab80-a28d843e-d597-464e-a0cf-23b0c01eadc9-r0-SendEmail-UpdateActivity-rh_neu-aid_6610d7df-63e5-46ef-bd0c-448e18558d2b@odspnotify >> > If this is indeed exactly as you write, it would be invalid. However, I > suspect that the line break is either inserted by whatever tools you use to > look at the headers, or that there was a white space after the line break, > which would be correct formatting for long headers. Bastian has pointed out > another Message-Id format problem, which may as well be the real cause for > SpamAssassins verdict.
I did actually check on the mail relay (Postfix) and there is indeed a CRLF in there … > Since Message-Ids are often bad-formed, and the FORGED_SPF_HELO check does > not really match the intent of SPF (how badly designed SPF may be), using > these checks seems overly zealous to me. Of course, you can use them for > scoring, but then you should not set the limit too low. Yes, what I wanted to do is create a dedicated SpamAssassin rule which changes these values for a block of IPs but I can’t seem to figure it out. Cheers, Arrigo _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
