https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358
--- Comment #6 from Mark ---
The sample has duplicate boundaries declared. This may confuse a parser.
As RW noticed, there is no empty MIME part. A boundary close has "--" appended.
Perhaps the parser stops looking for MIME parts after th
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7359
Bug ID: 7359
Summary: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT block local IP
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.4.0
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7359
AXB changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358
--- Comment #7 from John Woods ---
Good eye!
The boundary is: --6479071-26388092-1648650284=:2907
The lines that throw the parser off have: --6479071-26388092-1648650284=:2907--
I'm not sure whether the e-mail in question conforms to RFC
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
Bug ID: 7360
Summary: SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as
well
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358
--- Comment #8 from John Woods ---
Looks as if I didn't know what I was talking about... After looking through
Message.pm, and reading parts of RFC 1521, I'd like to scratch my previous
comment...
In RFC 1521, Section 7.2.1, it says this:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
AXB changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
Petr Bena changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petr@bena.rocks
--- Comment #2 from Pet
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #3 from AXB ---
(In reply to Petr Bena from comment #2)
> Do you realize that this renders SPF check absolutely useless? Every script
> kiddie can bypass it as it's implemented in SA right now.
SpamAssassin didn't invent the sp
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #4 from AXB ---
Please take further comments to the SA users list.
Bugzilla is not the right place do discuss this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #5 from Benny Pedersen ---
maybe Sender-ID is much much better then SPF?
ironical microsoft does not use it anymore :-)
(use dkim would be solution)
or maybe time to make dmarc testing in SpamAssassin ?
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360
--- Comment #6 from AXB ---
(In reply to Benny Pedersen from comment #5)
> maybe Sender-ID is much much better then SPF?
>
> ironical microsoft does not use it anymore :-)
>
> (use dkim would be solution)
>
> or maybe time to make dmarc t
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358
John Hardin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jhar...@impsec.org
--- Comment #9 fro
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358
Mark changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@mx-security.com
--- Comment #10 from Ma
14 matches
Mail list logo
