Re: Mail to local users

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:30:09 -0600 @lbutlr wrote: > It appears that switching from dovecot LDA to dovecot LMTP has > changed the appearance of the headers from local users. I’ll go check > on the dovecot list. > > Here’s what the received header used to look like: > > Received: ...(Postfix)

Re: Mail to local users

@lbutlr schrieb am 16.06.2019 um 23:41: Seems like the -I fall should be taking care of this for me, at present. But how do I tell spamass-milter not to check for PBL and other similar tests on mails from local users to local users? With postfix, best practice for locally submitted mail is to

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Amir Caspi wrote: > > rawbody AC_HIDDEN_FONT /font-size\s*:\s*0\s*(?:em|pt|px|%)\s*;/ > Actually, based on another spample (https://pastebin.com/rrU2AsVT ), let's modify this one -- the em/pt/px/% isn't required: rawbody

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Amir Caspi wrote: > rawbody AC_HIDDEN_ELEMENT /display\s*:\s*none\s*;/ Since display:none is a pretty common method for showing and hiding elements depending on things like screen size, I would guess this is going to hit mostly ham. -- It was easy to

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:30 PM, Amir Caspi wrote: > Wouldn't that only be true for dynamic content that can actually evaluate the > screensize, and hence would require javascript? Or is there a way of doing > this with static email content? (I'm very well versed in HTML for web > browsers, but

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Amir Caspi wrote: > > rawbody AC_MEDIA_DISPLAYNONE > /@media[^{]*{[^}]*display\s*:\s*none\s*;/i > Well, urgh, this particular rule wouldn't work well since it wouldn't capture classes within the @media block. But something LIKE it. --- Amir

Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

Hi all, In reviewing today's FNs I came across the following spample: https://pastebin.com/9QQVwUY6 There is a div here with display:none, as well as font-size:0px. The spample hits HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST but does not appear to hit any rule relating to a hidden div or tiny font. Does

Re: Mail to local users

On Jun 17, 2019, at 12:28 PM, David B Funk wrote: > Taking a quick look at the source code for spamass-milter (I use a different > milter) I can see that it explicitly needs '{auth_type}' and '{auth_ssf}’ so > you can ignore {auth_authen} & {auth_author}. The default settings for postfix

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Monday 17 June 2019 at 21:14:36, Amir Caspi wrote: > Hi all, > > In reviewing today's FNs I came across the following spample: > https://pastebin.com/9QQVwUY6 > > There is a div here with display:none, as well as font-size:0px. The > spample hits HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST but does not appear

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:45 PM, @lbutlr wrote: > > Would only be active if the width of the window is 900px or less. That can > include setting a display property to hidden or not. One way of working around that, then, would be to ensure this is only within a div/span tag... Maybe something

Re: Mail to local users

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, David B Funk wrote: Are you feeding spamass-milter the necessary information (via milter-macros in your MTA config) so that -it- knows that particular session is authenticated? It needs that info if it's going to synthesize the correct header so that SpamAssassin knows

Re: Rules for invisible div and 0pt font?

On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Antony Stone wrote: > > If this feature *is* used for screenreaders, you could be creating a false > positive trap here... You may well be right, hence the request to sandbox and see how it compares against masscheck. On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:25 PM, @lbutlr wrote:

Re: Mail to local users

On 17 Jun 2019, at 14:28, David B Funk wrote: Taking a quick look at the source code for spamass-milter (I use a different milter) I can see that it explicitly needs '{auth_type}' and '{auth_ssf}' so you can ignore {auth_authen} & {auth_author}. That's an unfortunate design choice. The

Re: Mail to local users

On 17 Jun 2019, at 02:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> But how do I tell spamass-milter not to check for PBL and other similar >> tests on mails from local users to local users? > > don't. This is exactly what spammers try for years to avoid being detected. Spammers are not local users on

Re: Mail to local users

On 17 Jun 2019, at 11:06, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 17.06.19 um 16:30 schrieb @lbutlr: >> Received: from darth.lan (c-73-14.161.160.hsd1.co.comcast.net >> [73.14.161.160]) >> by mail.covisp.net(Postfix 3.4.5/8.13.0) with SMTP id unknown; >> Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:26:32 -0600 >>

Re: Mail to local users

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, @lbutlr wrote: On 17 Jun 2019, at 11:06, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 17.06.19 um 16:30 schrieb @lbutlr: Received: from darth.lan (c-73-14.161.160.hsd1.co.comcast.net [73.14.161.160]) by mail.covisp.net(Postfix 3.4.5/8.13.0) with SMTP id unknown; Sun, 16 Jun 2019

Re: Mail to local users

On 16.06.19 15:41, @lbutlr wrote: When I send an mail from my home machine to a user who is local to my mail server, SpamAssassin (via spmass-milter) tags the mail as spam entirely because my home IP is in the PBL blacklist. Which of course, it is and it should be. However, since the mail is