On 24 Nov 2015, at 17:20, David Jones wrote:
[...]
NOTE: I have just now tested that I can give Postfix (with
reject_unknown_helo_hostname not enabled) a fully-qualified HELO name
that has no A or one with an A resolving to 192.0.2.1 (and therefore:
no
PTR) and in both cases Postfix neither lo
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Bill Cole wrote:
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
It seems to me like the entirety of the pro
Am 25.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Bill Cole:
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
I think Justin's rationale there isn't ev
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Edda wrote:
Older versions performed rdns lookups for every IP in relay-untrusted
directly in Received.pm, this was deleted:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5054
I think Justin's rationale there isn't even the whole case for NOT doing
DNS checks
Am 25.11.15 um 15:56 schrieb RW:.
3. You have no test for dynamic rDNS
why that when SA makes the dns request and so have a rDNS?
Because, as far as I can see, the patch doesn't make the rDNS available
to SA's other tests, it just supplies a stand-alone test for no-rDNS.
Correct.
I don
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:54:46 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 25.11.2015 um 14:41 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
> > Matthias Apitz wrote:
> >
> >> I think we can close this thread now :-)
> >
> > IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
> >
> > The absence of reverse DNS gives
Am 25.11.2015 um 14:41 schrieb RW:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I think we can close this thread now :-)
IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
The absence of reverse DNS gives you three problem:
1. You have no test for the absence of rDNS
why that when SA
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:32:59 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> I think we can close this thread now :-)
IIWY I'd still use the Botnet plugin.
The absence of reverse DNS gives you three problem:
1. You have no test for the absence of rDNS
2. You have no test for the absence of full-circle DNS
On 11/25/2015 6:07 AM, Edda wrote:
Ouch, sorry, i tested it on 3.3.1 and "re-typed" that line in 3.4.1
Does the patch work for you?
Since we're currently developing in both 3.4.2 and 4.0 and now you have
bumped into the same problem, I might as well share this:
repatch() {
(cd $1 && svn
El día Wednesday, November 25, 2015 a las 12:07:12PM +0100, Edda escribió:
> >>'check_rbl_envfrom',
> >> +'check_dsn_rdns',
> > ^^
> >>'check_dns_sender',
> >> ];
> >>
> >> @@ -373,6 +374,25 @@
> >> }
> >>}
> >>
> >> +sub check_dns_rdns {
> >
Am 25.11.15 um 09:55 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:27:45PM +0100, Edda escribió:
I have found the bug in your patch, just a spelling issue:
pop:Mail eh$ diff -u SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG
SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm
--- SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEv
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:27:45PM +0100, Edda escribió:
I have found the bug in your patch, just a spelling issue:
>
> pop:Mail eh$ diff -u SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG
> SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm
> --- SpamAssassin/Plugin/DNSEval.pm.ORG2015-11-24 19:02:58.0
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:27:45PM +0100, Edda escribió:
> Anyway, for the moment, here's the patch, diff is on version 3.4.1:
>
> Rule (I tested it as a simple rule in local.cf, sure one can combine it
> with RDNS_NONE):
>
> ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DNSEval
>
> hea
On November 25, 2015 12:15:45 AM John Hardin wrote:
It would be the last relay into the internal network, if it's from an
untrusted server. The edge of the trusted network may be a submission
server.
You don't trust the headers your submission server generates?
rdns_none possible missing e
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:15:17 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, RW wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:03:12 -0800 (PST)
> > John Hardin wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >>> i would suggest when the Received header for the *first* untrusted
>
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:29:40 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 um 20:24 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
> > El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 05:08:20PM +0100, Reindl
> > Harald escribió:
> >> i dunno why the OP is fetching his mail from his ISP and then feed
> >> spamassassin with the mai
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, RW wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:03:12 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
i would suggest when the Received header for the *first* untrusted
hop
Just so we're clear on first vs. last: the host that submitted the
mail to the most-re
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:03:12 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> > i would suggest when the Received header for the *first* untrusted
> > hop
>
> Just so we're clear on first vs. last: the host that submitted the
> mail to the most-remote MTA whose he
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 17:08 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> why not read the thread from thje first beginning?
>
What makes you think I didn't? Though I rather wish I hadn't.
> i dunno why the OP is fetching his mail from his ISP and then feed
> spamassassin with the mails local, *but* he does
>From: Bill Cole
>Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:31 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:54, David Jones wrote:
>>> From: Bill Cole
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:41 PM
>>> To:
Am 24.11.15 um 21:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
i would suggest when the Received header for the *first* untrusted hop
Just so we're clear on first vs. last: the host that submitted the
mail to the most-remote MTA whose headers you trust.
don't contain a
On 24 Nov 2015, at 14:54, David Jones wrote:
From: Bill Cole
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:41 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
On 24 Nov 2015, at 13:47, David Jones wrote:
Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix
which puts
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
i would suggest when the Received header for the *first* untrusted hop
Just so we're clear on first vs. last: the host that submitted the mail to
the most-remote MTA whose headers you trust.
don't contain a reverse dns information *and only then* do
>From: Bill Cole
>Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:41 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>On 24 Nov 2015, at 13:47, David Jones wrote:
>> Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix
>> which puts in
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:40 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:29:40PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
WHy you dunno this? My mail must arrive somewhere, from where I can
fetch it with fetchmail+imap when I'm online again with my FreeBSD netbook or
my Ubuntu mobile
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:36 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:20 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald
and that is why i call it harmful to completly
On 24 Nov 2015, at 13:47, David Jones wrote:
Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix
which puts in Received headers like this:
Received: from econnect.dmsgs.com (unknown [8.224.216.57])
That IP has a PTR record but it doesn't match the SMTP HELO of
econnect.dmsgs.com so Po
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 08:29:40PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
> > WHy you dunno this? My mail must arrive somewhere, from where I can
> > fetch it with fetchmail+imap when I'm online again with my FreeBSD netbook
> > or
> > my Ubuntu mobile phone
>
> normally a sane ISP *sho
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:27 schrieb Edda:
Am 24.11.15 um 14:40 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 01:47:23PM +0100, Reindl
Harald escribió:
On 24.11.15 13:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
on the other hand why can't SA not do the lookup for the IP of
"Received: from [140.211
>From: Reindl Harald
>Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:20 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>Am 24.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb David Jones:
>>> From: Reindl Harald
>>> and that is why i call it harmful to completly rely o
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:24 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 05:08:20PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
i dunno why the OP is fetching his mail from his ISP and then feed
spamassassin with the mails local,
WHy you dunno this? My mail must arrive somewhere, from whe
Am 24.11.15 um 14:40 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 01:47:23PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
On 24.11.15 13:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
on the other hand why can't SA not do the lookup for the IP of
"Received: from [140.211.11.3]" given that it does a lot of dns
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 05:08:20PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
> i dunno why the OP is fetching his mail from his ISP and then feed
> spamassassin with the mails local,
WHy you dunno this? My mail must arrive somewhere, from where I can
fetch it with fetchmail+imap when I'm o
Am 24.11.2015 um 20:16 schrieb David Jones:
From: Reindl Harald
and that is why i call it harmful to completly rely on the Received
header instead doing the DNS lookup based on the IP which would have a
lot of advantages:
* less error prone
* even when the MTA had a timeout a chance that th
>From: Reindl Harald
>Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:01 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>Am 24.11.2015 um 19:47 schrieb David Jones:
>> Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix
>> which puts in
Am 24.11.2015 um 19:47 schrieb David Jones:
Could this be dependent on the MTA used? I am using Postfix
which puts in Received headers like this:
Received: from econnect.dmsgs.com (unknown [8.224.216.57])
That IP has a PTR record but it doesn't match the SMTP HELO of
econnect.dmsgs.com so Po
>From: RW
>Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:23 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:39:49 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_NONE
>>
>> RDNS_NONE checks
Am 24.11.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 14:59 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
the topic is about the IP vom the Received-header of the trusted IP,
in
other words about the non-trusted machine delivered the message to
the ISP
I'm curious: if you're willing to trust
Am 24.11.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 12:00 +, RW wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the
problem
and wh
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 12:00 +, RW wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
> Matthias Apitz wrote:
>
>
> > I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
> > hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the
> > problem
> > and why there should be together wit
On 11/24/2015 02:46 PM, Axb wrote:
On 11/24/2015 02:40 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 01:47:23PM +0100, Reindl
Harald escribió:
On 24.11.15 13:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
on the other hand why can't SA not do the lookup for the IP of
"Received: from [140.211.11
On 11/24/2015 02:40 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 01:47:23PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
On 24.11.15 13:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
on the other hand why can't SA not do the lookup for the IP of
"Received: from [140.211.11.3]" given that it does a lot of dn
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 01:47:23PM +0100, Reindl Harald
escribió:
> > On 24.11.15 13:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> on the other hand why can't SA not do the lookup for the IP of
> >> "Received: from [140.211.11.3]" given that it does a lot of dns
> >> lookups anyway?
> >
> > just
Am 24.11.2015 um 13:38 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the problem
and why there should be together with the IP a
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the problem
and why there should be together with the IP a rDNS, and why I can't
do the lookup by my own, :-(
Am 24.11.2015 um 13:00 schrieb RW:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the problem
and why there should be together with the IP a rDNS, and why I can
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:22:20 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> I have contacted the support of my ISP and phoned them today: the
> hotline guy said, that the technican not even understood the problem
> and why there should be together with the IP a rDNS, and why I can't
> do the lookup by my own, ...
Thank you both, please stop this pissing contest.
On 24-11-15 12:35, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 24.11.2015 um 12:29 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
>> Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-11-24 11:56:
>>
>>> it's the exim of the ISP
>>
>> with old version of exim
>
> it's still the exim of the ISP
>
>>> it
Am 24.11.2015 um 12:29 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-11-24 11:56:
it's the exim of the ISP
with old version of exim
it's still the exim of the ISP
it's the exim of the ISP
with old version of exim
it's still the exim of the ISP
again disable of rdns_none is
Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-11-24 11:56:
it's the exim of the ISP
with old version of exim
it's the exim of the ISP
with old version of exim
again disable of rdns_none is not the solution, so why fokus on that?
because *it is* the solution damned when "make spamassassin exceptions
for
Am 24.11.2015 um 11:51 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-24 11:36:
Do you really understood that the Exim in question runs on a server of
my ISP which is not under my control?
if i was a isp, would never have used exim for a mta with so many users
how does that help
Am 24.11.2015 um 11:30 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-24 11:22:
As I get all my mails with this missing rDNS symbol in the Received:
line, I have only two options: unconfigure the RDNS_NONE test or change
the ISP.
two options:
1: make spamassassin exceptions for t
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-24 11:36:
Do you really understood that the Exim in question runs on a server of
my ISP which is not under my control?
if i was a isp, would never have used exim for a mta with so many users,
so option 1 is still left :=)
just not worth to solve in spamassas
El día Tuesday, November 24, 2015 a las 11:30:31AM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
> Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-24 11:22:
>
> > As I get all my mails with this missing rDNS symbol in the Received:
> > line, I have only two options: unconfigure the RDNS_NONE test or change
> > the ISP.
>
>
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-24 11:22:
As I get all my mails with this missing rDNS symbol in the Received:
line, I have only two options: unconfigure the RDNS_NONE test or change
the ISP.
two options:
1: make spamassassin exceptions for the faulty isp headers so rdns_none
does not fire,
El día Saturday, November 21, 2015 a las 06:57:41PM +, RW escribió:
> RDNS_NONE simply means that the received header on the edge of your
> internal network (i.e. the MX header) didn't record the rDNS of the
> connecting host.
>
> Typically this means there it has no RDNS, but it can also m
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 11:58:29PM +0100, Edda escribió:
> Received: from [140.211.11.3] (helo=mail.apache.org)
> by ms-10.1blu.de with smtp (Exim 4.76)
>
> (envelope-from)
> id 1a0c7H-0003WU-3m
> forg...@unixarea.de; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:24:11 +0100
>
> To
Am 23.11.15 um 10:33 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
What should I fix exactly if apache.org triggers this RDNS_NONE:
$ fgrep RDNS_NONE /tmp/apache.d
nov 23 08:30:06.666 [2204] dbg: rules: ran header rule __RDNS_NONE ==> got hit:
"[ ip=140.211.11.3 rdns= "
you can find the full -D output of such a
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:04:28 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:46:14PM +, RW escribió:
> > Don't do that, there's nothing wrong with their headers or DNS. The
> > rule is triggered by an internal handover from a submission server
> > to an IMAP server bei
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 15:04:
Why do you think that the missing rDNS name in this line:
none, mails from apache is not fetchmailed
Received: from [140.211.11.3] (helo=mail.apache.org) by
ms-10.1blu.de with smtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from
)
id 1a0rRx-000
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:46:14PM +, RW escribió:
> > > blame your MTA our your MTA configuration for the way it adds
> > > received headers without name resolving, look at my recceived
> > > header and yours for 140.211.11.3
> >
> > Thanks. It is not my MTA, but the one of
On 23.11.15 14:40, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 13:34:
but it still gives always RDNS_NONE
you will have to add your isp mta incomming ip to your
trusted_networks in local.cf, then RDNS_NONE will be testing mails
sent to your isp, currently you test broken isp m
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:03:07 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:50:54AM +0100, Reindl
> Harald escribió:
>
> > blame your MTA our your MTA configuration for the way it adds
> > received headers without name resolving, look at my recceived
> > header and yours
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 13:34:
but it still gives always RDNS_NONE
you will have to add your isp mta incomming ip to your trusted_networks
in local.cf, then RDNS_NONE will be testing mails sent to your isp,
currently you test broken isp mta setup that is fetched with fetchmail
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:48:58PM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
> >>> I set in my file .spamassassin/user_prefs
> >>>
> >>> meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
> >>>
> >>> but it still gives always RDNS_NONE
> >>
> >> because it does the same as t
then just disable the rule?!
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
Datum: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:51:05 +0100
Von: Benny Pedersen
Organisation: Jersore Underground Network Center
An: users@spamassassin.apache.org
it misses the 3dr header test for your isp t
Reindl Harald skrev den 2015-11-23 13:38:
score RDNS_NONE 0
why using spamassassin anyway ?
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 13:34:
#
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
but it still gives always RDNS_NONE
it misses the 3dr header test for your isp to be added to the meta
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:38:12PM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:26:25PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
its known 2 mta that makes incor
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:38:12PM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
> Am 23.11.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
> > El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:26:25PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
> > escribió:
> >
> >> its known 2 mta that makes incorrect headers so RDNS cant be used fr
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:26:25PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
its known 2 mta that makes incorrect headers so RDNS cant be used from
them, is your isp using another mta that also breaks headers like domino
and commicate pro
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:26:25PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
> its known 2 mta that makes incorrect headers so RDNS cant be used from
> them, is your isp using another mta that also breaks headers like domino
> and commicate pro
>
> the spamassamssin rule is correct but ma
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:18 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:04:07PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 10:43:
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD && !__DOMINO_RCVD)
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGAT
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 13:18:
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD &&
!__DOMINO_RCVD)
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
current rule will not work since both mta recieved must be negative
not
matching, with my meta it is possible
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 01:04:07PM +0100, Benny Pedersen
escribió:
> Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 10:43:
>
> > meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD && !__DOMINO_RCVD)
>
> meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
>
> current rule
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:04 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 10:43:
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD && !__DOMINO_RCVD)
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
current rule will not work since both mta recieved must be n
Matthias Apitz skrev den 2015-11-23 10:43:
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !__CGATE_RCVD && !__DOMINO_RCVD)
meta RDNS_NONE (__RDNS_NONE && !(__CGATE_RCVD || __DOMINO_RCVD))
current rule will not work since both mta recieved must be negative not
matching, with my meta it is possibl
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:50:54AM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
> blame your MTA our your MTA configuration for the way it adds received
> headers without name resolving, look at my recceived header and yours
> for 140.211.11.3
Thanks. It is not my MTA, but the one of my ISP ru
er=OTHER);
Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:23:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:23:40 +
From: RW
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
Message-ID: <20151122212340.239a9...@gumby.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To:
References
(PST)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:23:40 +
From: RW
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
Message-ID: <20151122212340.239a9...@gumby.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To:
References: <20151121151553.GA2953@c720-r276659>
<20151121194328.6ca6
Am 23.11.2015 um 10:33 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:20:37AM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
Your mail through apache.org comes
again with
* 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
Maybe it's the SA version, mine is 3.4.0
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:20:37AM +0100, Reindl Harald escribió:
> > Your mail through apache.org comes
> > again with
> >
> > * 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
> >
> > Maybe it's the SA version, mine is 3.4.0, yours 3.4.1?
>
> what about fi
On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 09:57 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> And what does this help in my case? Your mail through apache.org
> comes
> again with
>
> * 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with
> no rDNS
>
Who owns this host?
If it belongs to you or is your ISP's mail del
Am 23.11.2015 um 09:57 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:46:42AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson
escribió:
$ host 140.211.11.3
3.11.211.140.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hermes.apache.org.
matthias
Blah. That is NOT normal.
What do you want to say exact
Am 23.11.2015 um 09:30 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:23:26AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson
escribió:
This is exactly what I said in my first mail: the description of
RDNS_NONE is just wrong; nearly all my incoming mails are flagged by
RDNS_NONE; for example the m
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:46:42AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson
escribió:
> >>> $ host 140.211.11.3
> >>> 3.11.211.140.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer hermes.apache.org.
> >>>
> >>> matthias
> >>>
> >>
> >> Blah. That is NOT normal.
> >
> > What do you want to say exactly with 'Blah.
On 23.11.2015 10.30, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:23:26AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson
escribió:
On 23.11.2015 8.54, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Sunday, November 22, 2015 a las 09:23:40PM +, RW escribió:
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_NONE
El día Monday, November 23, 2015 a las 10:23:26AM +0200, Jari Fredriksson
escribió:
> On 23.11.2015 8.54, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > El día Sunday, November 22, 2015 a las 09:23:40PM +, RW escribió:
> >>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_NONE
> >>>
> >>> RDNS_NONE checks more th
On 23.11.2015 8.54, Matthias Apitz wrote:
El día Sunday, November 22, 2015 a las 09:23:40PM +, RW escribió:
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/Rules/RDNS_NONE
RDNS_NONE checks more than just the PTR (reverse) DNS record.
It really should be named FCRDNS_NONE
Then the wiki is wrong.
Th
El día Sunday, November 22, 2015 a las 09:23:40PM +, RW escribió:
> normal delivery. Getting the internal/trusted networks right for this
> kind of mail is of often significantly more difficult than dealing with
> the normal case, and may be more trouble than it's worth on a
> network you don'
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:39:49 +
David Jones wrote:
> >From: RW
> >by ms-10.1blu.de with esmtpsa
> > (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
>
> >This is a submission header, so the DNS of 93.104.16.254 doesn't
> >matter.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out. Also now that we know that
>From: RW
>Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 1:43 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:35:54 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> Read the Received headers from the bottom up.
>>
>> Received: from [93.104
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:35:54 +
David Jones wrote:
> Read the Received headers from the bottom up.
>
> Received: from [93.104.16.254] (helo=localhost.unixarea.de)
>
> This IP has a lot of issues and will always hit RDNS_NONE because
> there is no way to make the FCrDNS check pass to match th
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:31:31 +0100
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > Received: from [93.104.16.254] (helo=localhost.unixarea.de)
> >
> > This IP has a lot of issues and will always hit RDNS_NONE
> > because there is no way
> > to make the FCrDNS check pass to match the SMTP HELO of
> > localhost.unixa
On Saturday, 21 November 2015 17:40:58 CET, Antony Stone wrote:
There is not much I can do when the dynamic IP addr which the
ISP gives to
me was used for spamming, bots or other bad stuff.
True. Which is why running a mail server on a dynamic
ISP-assigned IP address
will result in a lot o
On Saturday 21 November 2015 at 17:31:31, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > It's also on a lot of RBLs so your outbound mail delivery is
> > going to be very unreliable:
> >
> > http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/93.104.16.254.html
>
> There is not much I can do when the dynamic IP addr which the ISP give
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:35:54 +
From: David Jones
To: spamassassin-users ,
Matthias Apitz
Subject: Re: question re/ RDNS_NONE
Read the Received headers from the bottom up.
Thanks for the reply. I did so before sending the question to the list and
could not find any IP addr
>From: Matthias Apitz
>Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 9:15 AM
>To: spamassassin-users
>Subject: question re/ RDNS_NONE
>Hello,
>I've sent myself an email which gets marked with RDNS_NONE. Can someone
>please be so kind and explain to me which IP addr exactl
Am 21.11.2015 um 16:15 schrieb Matthias Apitz:
I've sent myself an email which gets marked with RDNS_NONE. Can someone
please be so kind and explain to me which IP addr exactly triggers this
RDNS_NONE qualification? Thanks in advance
that's not a normal mail-flow and it's hard to guess what o
Hello,
I've sent myself an email which gets marked with RDNS_NONE. Can someone
please be so kind and explain to me which IP addr exactly triggers this
RDNS_NONE qualification? Thanks in advance.
matthias
- Forwarded message from Matthias Apitz -
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAss
100 matches
Mail list logo
