On 16/02/2021 17:31, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > On 16 Feb 2021, at 3:39, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote: > >> On Mon 15/Feb/2021 22:07:20 +0100 John Levine via mailop wrote: >>> In article <463b0950-7b4e-d81d-7abc-0cf5120f6...@tana.it> you write: >>>>> https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/807/using-our-public-mirrors-check-your-return-codes-now >>>>> >>> >>>> It would certainly have been less error-prone to return an >>>> appropriate rcode[*], such as FORMERR/ >>>> REFUSED, possibly followed by a more precise extended error code[†]. >>> >>> Except that REFUSED means something else, >> >> >> 5 Refused - The name server refuses to >> perform the specified operation for >> policy reasons. For example, a name >> server may not wish to provide the >> information to the particular requester, >> or a name server may not wish to perform >> a particular operation (e.g., zone >> transfer) for particular data. >> >> >>> and nobody looks at DNS error codes when interpreting DNSBLs. >> >> >> Just a line in the mail log. If the server is being taken care of, >> someone will notice repeated errors... >> >> >>>> Is it that requiring people to install a DNSBL-specific plugin earns >>>> Spamhaus something? >>> >>> If you see any of these codes, your setup is broken. >> >> >> What I see is something like this: >> >> Feb 16 09:30:44 north courieresmtpd: >> error,relay=193.188.30.85,port=50761,from=<b-334.297.8w5fkeum...@nw.imiglioriacquistiperlui.eu>,to=<REDACTED>: >> 550 Rejected - see http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=193.188.30.85 >> >> I don't see the actual code. > > Implementation detail. That URL may in your case be synthesized locally, > but in some MTAs the TXT record for a listed IP is logged. With modern > Postfix using postscreen, the value of matching A records is logged. > > Also, this is not a new approach for Spamhaus. This is just new values > with more specific semantics. The general approach has been around for > long enough that some tools (e.g. SpamAssassin) have recognized > 127.255.255.255 as a "BLOCKED" since 2019.
Rspamd also recognises these codes. Plus Rspamd generally ignores unknown codes (or inserts a special zero-weight symbol for those) and performs regular RBL sanity checks according to RFC 5782 out of the box, automatically disabling broken RBLs or broken resolvers (e.g. capturing resolvers that tries to redirect you somewhere). So while I'm watching this thread closely I see nothing that might be improved in the current RBLs processing logic in Rspamd. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
