Microsoft Office Outlook 11. Wow, I didn't know it sucks *that* badly. No proper threading headers (In-Reply-To and References), produces fugly Kammquoting, and even injects an empty line after each and every line of text. And *then* converts that monstrosity into HTML, preserving the utterly broken format.
Next time, please do as you did with your previous reply. Thanks. On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 16:04 -0400, Philippe Ratté wrote: > > Ok, slow down. What rules *exactly* are hitting on these messages? > > See below No answer to that, but see below. :) > > A SORBS listing does NOT explain why your customer doesn't get his mail. > > You wouldn't happen to run RBL checks at SMTP stage, prior to SA, that > > outright block based on a single BL hit? > > This is true, I forgot to mention a very important detail. Mail was > getting blocked by another program named rblsmtpd at SMTP stage. > > I found the way to skip DNSBL checks for a particular IP in rblsmtpd, > but not into SpamAssassin. The reason why I wanted to do the same > thing into SA was to ensure that it would not be blocked at this stage > and tell my customer that Hotmail is white listed. Not blacklisting is not the same as whitelisting. > Found the reason (rblsmtpd). I did not know how SA handled DNSBL so > maybe simply removing it from rblsmtpd would be enough. Yes, indeed. As I explained previously, the SA score for any SORBS hit is not sufficient to push it over a sane spam score threshold, let alone a typically higher threshold to reject based on the SA score. *IFF* you reject based on SA at all. FWIW, SA handles DNSBLs like every other rule -- it scores it. SA is a scoring system, and by default and design no one rule hit is sufficient to push it over the spam threshold single-handedly. So again, yes -- not having rblsmtpd block mail on SORBS should already be enough. Even if SA still scores it, it should be fine. If, however, there *might* be potential for SA flagging these mail as spam with a SORBS hit -- which requires other rules to also hit on these mail and account for 80+ % of the score -- we won't know until you show us the SA rules hit. As I requested before. > I like John's idea : > > meta NO_RBL_HOTMAIL RBL_SORBS && FROM_HOTMAIL > score NO_RBL_HOTMAIL -2 The idea was actually mentioned by me, but oh well. ;) > Can you help me writing these ? Well, here are two UNTESTED and ad-hoc written rules, to be used in a meta as I previously outlined. The first IP variant in this case matches an entire /24 network, the RDNS variant matches any Hotmail blu0 host. Both are pretty much examples and likely need to be adjusted. header HOTMAIL_IP_TO_MX X-Spam-Relay-Untrusted =~ /^\[ ip=65\.55\.111\./ header HOTMAIL_RDNS_TO_MX X-Spam-Relay-Untrusted =~ /^\[ [^\]]+ rdns=[^ ]+\.blu0\.hotmail\.com / Also, see the docs. http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/WritingRules http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/TrustedRelays However, I still do not believe this to be necessary. Moreover, I don't think assigning any negative score to hotmail, solely based on that fact is a good idea. You mentioned it yourself -- you *do* get spam from hotmail. Thus, if you really feel like you need white- listing, I'd recommend whitelist_from_rcvd or friends instead. guenther -- char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4"; 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; }}}
