Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville: Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate. if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that because you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies usng it to prevent mail-loops and the

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 + David Jones wrote: > I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot > of legit emails. Well, if you run your own mail server, you can do whatever you like so long as you accept the consequences. I would say: A null

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread David Jones
>From: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> >Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:12 AM >To: Philip Prindeville >Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom >Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread RW
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 + David Jones wrote: > > >From: Reindl Harald > >do what you want - a empty envelope from is not a sign of spam > > I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot > of legit

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread Dianne Skoll
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:30:42 + David Jones wrote: > I agree with you and Reindl on this point too. I guess what I meant > to say is usually the hardest spam to block with a null sender is > backscatter from a normally trusted/good reputation mail server. Yes, that can be

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread David Jones
> >From: Dianne Skoll <d...@roaringpenguin.com> >Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:02 AM >To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom >On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 + >David Jones <djo.

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread Philip Prindeville
On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville: >> Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate. >>> >>> if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that >>>

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread David Jones
>> I never said it was. >> >> What I said was that when it’s coming from a server that doesn’t >> except inbound messages (and hence can’t generate bounces) THEN it’s >> a sign of Spam. >Since when does a server handling outbound traffic have to accept >inbound mail? >Any setup with more than a

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread Axb
On 09/24/2015 06:17 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville: Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate. if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-24 Thread David B Funk
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville: Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate. if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that because you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-23 Thread RW
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:43:18 -0600 Philip Prindeville wrote: > Hi. > > I?m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22). > > MdF generates the header ?Return-Path: ? for me, so that > should be available to me in the rules. > > To test this, I wrote a couple of rules: > > header __L_EMPTY_SENDER

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-23 Thread Philip Prindeville
On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 22.09.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Philip Prindeville: >> I’m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22). >> >> MdF generates the header “Return-Path: ” for me, so that should >> be available to me in the rules. >> >>

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-23 Thread Philip Prindeville
On Sep 23, 2015, at 6:35 AM, RW wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:43:18 -0600 > Philip Prindeville wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> I?m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22). >> >> MdF generates the header ?Return-Path: ? for me, so that >> should be available to me in the

Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-22 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 22.09.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Philip Prindeville: I’m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22). MdF generates the header “Return-Path: ” for me, so that should be available to me in the rules. To test this, I wrote a couple of rules: header __L_EMPTY_SENDER EnvelopeFrom:addr !~ /./

Test for empty EnvelopeFrom

2015-09-22 Thread Philip Prindeville
Hi. I’m using SA with MdF on Linux (Fedora 22). MdF generates the header “Return-Path: ” for me, so that should be available to me in the rules. To test this, I wrote a couple of rules: header __L_EMPTY_SENDER EnvelopeFrom:addr !~ /./ header __L_MATCH_SENDER EnvelopeFrom:addr