Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-16 Thread Steve Martin
That was it. I had for some reason has removed the R flag in the postfix filter that was sending the mail to spamc. That of course broke spf's ability to do lookups on Return-Path. On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Steve Martin wrote: Running spamd with --debug=spf I'm getting some clues In th

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-16 Thread Steve Martin
Running spamd with --debug=spf I'm getting some clues In the spamd log, I'm seeing... Aug 16 09:16:37 xx spamassassin[6390]: spf: cannot get Envelope- From, cannot use SPF But, after I receive the email and run it through, it has no problem finding Envelope-From. Anyone know what may

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-16 Thread Steve Martin
I still have something strange going on that I can't figure out. When your mail came this morning, it did NOT have SPF_PASS, but if I run things manually now, I get it. Here is what I'm seeing when I run things manually now... The HELO fails like this... [5056] dbg: spf: checking HELO (helo

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-16 Thread Matt Kettler
Well, that one failed and it wasn't the list-posted copy. That was my direct email. And the HELO *should* pass due to the inclusion of IP address. It looks like you've got a broken trust path and SA is checking the wrong Received: header. Is your mailserver NATed? Do you have trusted_networks

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread hamann . w
Hi, on a well-behaved mailing list sends all mails are sent by "Mr. Majordomo" or such, and they should work well. Less well-behaved ones have the list server send mail as the originating user :( I installed something on a MTA a while ago which would ask senders from a local domain to authenti

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread Steve Martin
I replied elsewhere, but I was having some strange DNS problems today that probably caused every other lookup to fail. I THINK that was what was causing it. I'll watch for a while... On Aug 15, 2005, at 8:12 PM, List Mail User wrote: ... Not for me... * -6.0 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO User is

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread List Mail User
>... >Not for me... > >* -6.0 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO User is listed in 'whitelist_to' * 2.4 >SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (softfail) >* [SPF failed: ] * -1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto >white-list > >That is from your message... > >On Aug 15, 2005, at 6

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread Steve Martin
Looks like I was having a DNS problem. Not sure why it would turn into SPF_FAIL's, though since I think it would fail to get the SPF record and at that point shouldn't it not run SPF rules? I reran some of the messages that had been failing and they are fine now. On Aug 15, 2005, at 6:1

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread Steve Martin
Not for me... * -6.0 USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO User is listed in 'whitelist_to' * 2.4 SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL SPF: HELO does not match SPF record (softfail) * [SPF failed: ] * -1.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list That is from your message... On Aug 15, 2005, at 6:17 PM, List

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread Steve Martin
ED]> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: First 3.1 observation References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread List Mail User
>... >The first thing I've noticed after running 3.1pre1 for a few days is >that I'm getting much less bayes auto learning of ham due to the fact >that most of my messages from mailings lists fail SPF tests and get >penalized 2.4-2.6 points or so for it. They still aren't marked as >spam,

Re: First 3.1 observation

2005-08-15 Thread Matt Kettler
Steve Martin wrote: > The first thing I've noticed after running 3.1pre1 for a few days is > that I'm getting much less bayes auto learning of ham due to the fact > that most of my messages from mailings lists fail SPF tests and get > penalized 2.4-2.6 points or so for it. They still aren't mar