Justin Mason wrote:
There are several more;
MY_SERVERS_FOUND: a whitelisted relay a la "whitelist_bounce_relays" was
found
BOUNCE_MESSAGE: an MTA-generated bounce, "message was undeliverable" etc.
CRBOUNCE_MESSAGE: Challenge-response bounce message, eg. "please confirm your 
message was not spam"
VBOUNCE_MESSAGE: a virus-scanner-generated bounce, e.g. "You sent a virus"
ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE: any of the *BOUNCE_MESSAGE types
That lot look far more sensible... I don't get MY_SERVERS_FOUND... and I think I should for a mail I send to an invalid email address which generates the bounce.
Having read about the whitelist_bounce_relays, I thought that looked very neat... 
and I verified that every bounce message that I want to receive will mention in 
the headers (ellipsis => something-or-other) :-

    Received:
from ... (...) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix)...

So, I configured whitelist_bounce_relays to mail.mydomain.com. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this has made no difference. Both bogus bounces and legitimate bounces (where I intentionally send a mail message to a non-existent account on a remote server) are marked identically with both BOUNCE_MESSAGE and ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE.... Shouldn't the whitelisted bounce be marked differently?
This relay string should appear in the Received headers of the *bounced*
message, not of the *bounce* message.  in other words, the message
inside the bounce.  That's why you use it to list your own outbound MTAs.
I wasn't as clear as I could have been... mail.mydomain.com is my SMTP server... and the "Received:" line above is included in the bounce message body... just as I would expect. My problem appears to be that my own bounce messages aren't white-listed (to be marked with MY_SERVERS_FOUND) in spite of having:

   whitelist_bounce_relays mail.mydomain.com

in my local.cf; having verified the configuration syntax with "spamassassin --lint" and having re-started spamd...

hmmm.... Is the problem that the bounce message I receive is a multi-part mime message (with a copy of the mail I sent in the final part) or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Reply via email to