On 08/01/2023 15:56, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Received: by kent.sdaoden.eu (Postfix, from userid 1000)
> id 25D02B4B1E; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 19:35:21 +0100 (CET)
> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 19:35:21 +0100
> Author: Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu>
> From: Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu>
>
> you are not using postfix imho when it make "RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP Received:
> contains illegal IP address" in spamassassin test
No, that is not the header line that Spamassassin is complaining about,
it is:
Received: from kent.sdaoden.eu (kent.sdaoden.eu [192.0.2.2])
by sdaoden.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE9EC16059;
Sat, 7 Jan 2023 22:51:52 +0100 (CET)
The problem is that the OP uses the subnet 192.0.2.0/24 on his network,
which is only for documentation purposes. See the Whois excerpt:
> Comment: Addresses starting with "192.0.2.", "198.51.100.", or
> "203.0.113." are reserved for use in documentation and sample configurations.
> They should never be used in a live network configuration. No one has
> permission to use these addresses on the Internet.
> Comment:
> Comment: Network operators should add these address blocks to the list
> of non-routable address space, and if packet filters are deployed, then these
> address blocks should be added to packet filters. These blocks are not for
> local use, and the filters may be used in both local and public contexts.
> Comment:
> Comment: These addresses are assigned by the IETF, the organization
> that develops Internet protocols, in the Informational document RFC 5737,
> which can be found at:
> Comment: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737
Cheers,
Juri
