On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 18:46 -0300, Luis Hernán Otegui wrote:
> OK, i?ve been googlin' around, and it seems like an issue between
> Amavis (or MailScanner, for waht I've found) and some unsupported
> versions of Net::DNS, because when I run the message through SA by
> itself, this comes out:
Whatever you manually fed SA was even more borked than the inline
copy-n-paste of a message in your OP. Looking briefly at your original
paste, I do see these:
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:25:53 -0100
> From: "Deana Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Can you imagine that you are healthy?
However, your manual run hit hard on...
> 0.0 MISSING_MID Missing Message-Id: header
> 0.0 MISSING_DATE Missing Date: header
> 1.3 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
> 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
> 2.5 FM_NO_FROM_OR_TO FM_NO_FROM_OR_TO
> 0.5 FM_NO_TO FM_NO_TO
The "-1.8 ALL_TRUSTED" seems to support the assumption that you fed a
body only. Could be due to the exact details how you did it, though.
Also, this run didn't identify a HTML part at all...
The only difference that accounts for the spamminess in the second run
is the URIBL_BLACK hit. Maybe an oops, maybe a misconfiguration, maybe
due to not running in real time, but long after.
> So I'm blaming it on Amavis... (Net::DNS 0.59 here)...
I don't see much evidence for this, yet. ;)
guenther
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
