Since I am using spamassassin via MailScanner, I dug into my config files
more (took a while)  I found an option in spam.assassin.prefs.conf called
envelope_sender_header that was not set properly, now all SPF checks
work...

As for the scores, score of 0 for PASS makes perfect sense, but a FAIL
should receive at least the same score as a SOFTFAIL, because a FAIL means
the email is definately from a forged sender (on the other hand the FAIL
may be because the person who created the SPF records had no idea what
they were doing)...  catch 22....  oh well....



> Brian Taber wrote:
>> I am using spamassassin 3.0.4-1 with MailScanner.  I have 2
>> questions/issues about SPF checks.
>>
>> It seams that SA is only doing HELO SPF checks (I didn't even know those
>> existed till now) and not actual checks on the from addresses.  Is this
>> a
>> config issue?  I would like to enable these.  I can't fing any config
>> options pertaining to this...
>>
>> The second is about the scores assigned to SPF failures.
>> SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL
>> has a score of 3.140 (so if the provider has ~all in their SPF record,
>> they aren't really sure if their SPF record covers all of their servers,
>> you get SOFTFAIL), but SPF_HELO_FAIL has a score of 0.001 (the provider
>> has -all in their SPF record, sure their SPF record covers all of their
>> servers, you get FAIL).
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>>
>> Brian
>
> SA 3.0.x won't do "regular" SPF checks if the message is passed through
> any trusted hosts (the top most header passed to SA must be the first
> trusted host).  There's an option in 3.1 to override this.
>
> So if SA isn't running on your border MX then you won't see any of these
> SPF checks.  If it is running on your border MX then either your
> trusted_networks aren't set correctly or there is something else
> happening I've yet to see.
>
> Of course running a message through SpamAssassin (on the same host that
> normally runs SA) with debugging enabled will probably tell you why the
> check isn't being done (if it's a message that should hit an SPF test).
>
>
> Daryl
>
>

Reply via email to