FYI, you might want to check your outbound spam filter ;)
X-Spam: Yes
One thing to note, and maybe should be something to actually take up
with RFC's, but wonder if flags like this should some how become trace
headers..
Eg, which system put that header into the header list..
Especially now that inbound, outbound, and in transit systems and MTA's,
may actually be involved..
Or better yet, if a system flags a message as spam, should you allow it
out the door?
Looking at the headers, have to 'guess' that it was inserted by ..
Received: from mail.highsecure.ru
On 2021-02-16 12:38 p.m., Vsevolod Stakhov via mailop wrote:
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
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
