On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, RW wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:01:47 +0000
> Tom <t...@ecnow.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi SA peeps,
> >
> > I noticed that I was triggering
> > "RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC" when sending mail through
> > my own spamassassin, which is spamassassin-3.2.5-2 from the fc10 repo,
> > configured via mimedefang and sendmail-milter.
> >
> > I decided to try sending through my ISP's smtp server instead, and it
> > doesn't trigger the same rules, even though the content is the same,
> > and the client IP address is the same. I have posted the headers
> > below, I was hoping that someone could explain what the differences
> > are that trigger the rules on the first set of headers...?
>
> That's how it should work. You should be sending through a proper
> smarthost, and SA is penalizing you when you don't. It doesn't know it's
> internal because you haven't set your internal network to include your
> own IP address. Generally local mail shouldn't go through SA so
> that's not an issue.
In the general case that is how it should work but not in Tom's particular
case.
If you look closely at that "Received: from" header in the instance
where those rules fired, there is a "(authenticated bits=0)" component.
Thus he was using an authenticated-SMTP connection so SA should -NOT-
have fired those rules.
So that says that there's something wrong with his SA install which is
keeping it from recognizing/honoring that authed header.
I seem to remember there was an issue with some milters not properly
passing SMTP-auth header info. Maybe Tom needs to investigate this
for his particular milter.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
