List Mail User wrote:
...
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:51:25 -0500
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
To: List Mail User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Webmail and IP rules
.
>...
>Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:51:25 -0500
>From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...
>To: List Mail User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Webmail and IP
List Mail User wrote:
Dave,
You have a few valid points, and the rule may be misnamed with
HELO at its prefix; But look at some email coming from the free services
like Yahoo!, Hotmail or Gmail and you will see HTTP (as well as other
protocols; Hotmail/MSN also uses both of the MS
Shane Williams wrote:
I noticed the HELO_DYNAMIC_* thread and the conclusion that IMP adding
a Received header may be a source of problems. I pieced together the
same conclusion just this morning based on several false positives
that went through our campus' IMP-based webmail. In addition to
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Finch writes:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Shane Williams writes:
> > > I noticed the HELO_DYNAMIC_* thread and the conclusion that IMP adding
> > > a Received header may be a source of problems.
> >
> > I think the problem is be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shane Williams writes:
> Let me make it clear that I'm not convinced yet where the "problem"
> really lies. IMP's Received header seems deceptively "real", but for
> all I know this meets (or at least doesn't contradict) some RFC. On
> the other han
CTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Webmail and IP rules
Let me make it clear that I'm not convinced yet where the "problem"
...
--
Public key #7BBC68D9 at| Shane Williams
http://pgp.mit.edu/
3GvLGD004371
> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
> for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:57:22 -0600
>Received: from shanew.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> by shanew.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j23GvEUt027149
> for ; Thu, 3 Mar
Sigh,
Paul,
Do me a favor, go look at the SA code and see what "HELO_DYNAMIC_ATTBI"
is all about. Note that it is looking at the 'X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted'
meta-data thus SA already knows that client is untrusted, so it is NOT
a trusted_networks issue at all. So hacking the trust settings
will do N
Let me make it clear that I'm not convinced yet where the "problem"
really lies. IMP's Received header seems deceptively "real", but for
all I know this meets (or at least doesn't contradict) some RFC. On
the other hand even if the problem should be fixed by the IMP devs, it
may be easier to "fix
Dave,
You have a few valid points, and the rule may be misnamed with
HELO at its prefix; But look at some email coming from the free services
like Yahoo!, Hotmail or Gmail and you will see HTTP (as well as other
protocols; Hotmail/MSN also uses both of the MS proprietary protocols
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> Shane Williams writes:
> > I noticed the HELO_DYNAMIC_* thread and the conclusion that IMP adding
> > a Received header may be a source of problems.
>
> I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
> generating a Received header that looks
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, List Mail User wrote:
> >...
> >I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
> >generating a Received header that looks like a normal one added
> >by an MTA. Good enough to fool SpamAssassin into thinking it's
> >an SMTP one, anyway. ;)
> >
> >Could someone o
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 2 15:01:17 2005
>Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>...
>Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org
>...
>
>I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
>generating a Received header that looks like a normal one a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think the problem is being caused by IMP being "too good" at
generating a Received header that looks like a normal one added
by an MTA. Good enough to fool SpamAssassin into thinking it's
an SMTP one, anyway. ;)
Could someone open a bug about this
I noticed the HELO_DYNAMIC_* thread and the conclusion that IMP adding
a Received header may be a source of problems. I pieced together the
same conclusion just this morning based on several false positives
that went through our campus' IMP-based webmail. In addition to
the several variations of
16 matches
Mail list logo
