Alex skrev den 2024-04-24 15:45:
Hi,
I'm using SA 4.0.1 and amavisd with postfix. I've identified a few
bounce messages in the quarantine because they weren't identified
properly. Here's one:
https://pastebin.com/RMNkcyhF

Content preview: Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: CURTIS RICCIARDI (cuberi...@msn.com)<mailto:cuberi...@msn.com> The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please try resending your message
  later, or contact the recipient directly [...]

Content Domains: banno.com jshorefcu.org mailgun.net office365.com outlook.com windows.net

Content analysis details:   (11.9 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.3 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 0.0 ARC_VALID              Message has a valid ARC signature
 0.0 ARC_SIGNED             Message has a ARC signature
0.0 KAM_DMARC_STATUS Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
                            Alignment
0.5 AUTHRES_ARC_NONE Authentication-Results: has "arc=none" result 0.5 AUTHRES_DKIM_NONE Authentication-Results: has "dkim=none" result 0.5 AUTHRES_DMARC_NONE Authentication-Results: has "dmarc=none" result
 2.0 URL_GREYLIST           Other untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: bannoinstitutionassets.blob.core.windows.net (windows.net)] 1.5 AUTHRES_SPF_NONE Authentication-Results: has "spf=none" result
 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
3.1 URI_IMG_CWINDOWSNET Non-MSFT image hosted by Microsoft Azure infra,
                            possible phishing
1.3 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
 0.2 KAM_LOTSOFHASH         Emails with lots of hash-like gibberish
0.0 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID Test for Invalidly Named or Formatted Colors
                            in HTML

For example, it matches on
*  3.1 URI_IMG_CWINDOWSNET Non-MSFT image hosted by Microsoft Azure
infra, possible phishing

this is not in spamassassin core rules

 *  2.6 HOSTED_IMG_DIRECT_MX Image hosted at large ecomm, CDN or
hosting
 *      site, message direct-to-mx

also not in default rule sets

It also matches on ANY_BOUNCE_MESSAGE and BOUNCE_MESSAGE. Should metas
be created to avoid adding the above scores?

What more can be done to improve deliverability of these messages?
Perhaps this is something postfix can identify and bypass scanning?

it matches bounces since its a bounce, alt that is seen as a results of forwarding emails

Reply via email to