Le Jeudi 20 Octobre 2005 03:29, Matt Kettler a écrit :
> At 04:22 PM 10/19/2005, Jerome Mainka wrote:
> >same behavior. Actually, if I empty the internal/trusted networks set, I
> > get the same behavior.
>
> Warning: you can never empty the trusted networks set. If you don't have
> one declared, SA will make an educated guess.
OK.
> Have you tried running the message through spamassassin -D? The debug
> output will tell a bit about how SA parsed the various received headers,
> and which hosts are trusted.
Here are the parsed Received lines:
received-header: 'by' mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr has public IP 193.252.22.30
received-header: relay 127.0.0.1 trusted? yes internal? no
received-header: parsed as [ ip=193.251.71.180
rdns=APuteaux-116-1-6-180.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr helo=Test
by=mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=4FFBFA0001B3 auth= ]
received-header: 'by' mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr has public IP 193.252.22.30
received-header: relay 193.251.71.180 trusted? no internal? no
And the metadata:
metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Trusted: [ ip=127.0.0.1 rdns=localhost
helo=me-wanadoo.net by=mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr ident= envfrom= intl=0
id=B223EA00014D auth= ]
metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted: [ ip=193.251.71.180
rdns=APuteaux-116-1-6-180.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr helo=Test
by=mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=4FFBFA0001B3 auth= ]
From what I understood, mwinf0107.wanadoo.fr is the default SMTP gateway for
the Wanadoo subscribers. And when the message originates from and destinates
to a Wanadoo subscriber, the message goes this way.
I suspect that when the scanning host (mine) is not in the "network" of the
last Received header, network tests lead to unpredictable results. The only
solution would be to skip_rbl_checks. But the performance of SA would
dramatically decrease. Am I wrong?
Thanks for your answers.
Jérôme Mainka
Antidot
