[Bug 7358] MIMEHeader problem: Content-Type: multipart/mixed with an empty part

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358 Mark changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@mx-security.com

[Bug 7358] MIMEHeader problem: Content-Type: multipart/mixed with an empty part

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7358 John Hardin changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 7358] MIMEHeader problem: Content-Type: multipart/mixed with an empty part

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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

[Bug 7359] New: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT block local IP

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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

[Bug 7358] MIMEHeader problem: Content-Type: multipart/mixed with an empty part

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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

[Bug 7359] RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT block local IP

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7359 AXB changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug 7360] New: SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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

[Bug 7358] MIMEHeader problem: Content-Type: multipart/mixed with an empty part

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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,

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360 AXB changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7360 Petr Bena changed: What|Removed |Added CC||petr@bena.rocks ---

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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.

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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.

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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

[Bug 7360] SPF check plugin should verify reply to (From:) as well

2016-10-14 Thread bugzilla-daemon
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