Hi All,

 

I've started getting quite a few reports this morning that emails are coming
through unreadable.

 

This does not affect all messages, it seems to affect specific senders but
there are a number of senders affected and a number of recipients affected.

 

The messages affected are received fine and ASSP stores them complete in the
mail store folder.

 

When they are passed to the MTA, all of the headers are missing. Exim adds
its own information from what it is passed (sender, recipient and then adds
its own received header). 

 

The content of the message seems to be encoded content that I cannot locate
anywhere in any file saved by ASSP. My guess is that the whole message is
somehow getting encoded, including the headers and sent to the MTA as the
body of the message.

 

I've copied one example in below, though I've snipped off most of the actual
message for both the ASSP file and the Exim file. I can send the actual
unmodified versions privately if necessary. I have downgraded back to 14097
as the problem was not evident before upgrading again at the weekend.

 

Example mail as stored by ASSP:

 

X-Assp-Version: 2.4.2(14123) on mail.smtphost.co.uk

X-Assp-Server-TLS: yes

X-Assp-Delay: not delayed (1.1.1.1 in whitebox ); 6 May 2014

        09:41:19 +0100

X-Assp-Whitelisted: Yes (whitelisted - found valid Message-ID

        signature)

X-Assp-ID: mail.smtphost.co.uk m1-65679-08364

X-Assp-Session: A3FC150C

Received: from smtp5-out2.enta.net ([1.1.1.1] helo=smtp5-out2.enta.net)

        by mail.smtphost.co.uk with SMTP (2.4.2); 6 May 2014 09:41:19 +0100

Received: from remote.host.name (2.2.reverse.dns [2.2.2.2])

        (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))

        (No client certificate requested)

        by smtp5.enta.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC182FEC

        for <[email protected]>; Tue,  6 May 2014 09:41:13 +0100 (BST)

Received: from internal.server.local ([fe80::1c65:2f34:31e3:8b5e]) by

internal.server.local ([fe80::1c65:2f34:31e3:8b5e%12]) with mapi; Tue, 6 May

2014 09:41:12 +0100

From: Sender Name <[email protected]>

To: 'Recipient Name' <[email protected]>

Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:41:11 +0100

Subject: RE:

Thread-Index: AQHPaQYupn6DVC7MxUCc/owC0R/mqJszOmYggAAArwCAAABvwP///9UQ

Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<sig.3203bdec83.181da9a7f6a0eb448a8426590e9e7d9629713...@recipient.server.lo
cal>

In-Reply-To:
<sig.3203bdec83.181da9a7f6a0eb448a8426590e9e7d9629713...@recipient.server.lo
cal>

Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB

Content-Language: en-US

X-MS-Has-Attach: yes

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

 
boundary="_002_1880BEC6C4C252419D55D1057416134B969916E81DKSSDC1kalcres_"

MIME-Version: 1.0

 

--_002_1880BEC6C4C252419D55D1057416134B969916E81DKSSDC1kalcres_

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Hmm weird

 

Does it work now?

 

#####Message Continues

 

 

Logs from ASSP:

 

2014-05-06 10:39:53 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2 <> [SMTP
Reply] 250 OK

2014-05-06 10:39:53 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [SMTP Reply] 250 Accepted

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [SMTP Reply] 354 Enter message,
ending with "." on a line by itself

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] Message-Score: added -15
(pbwValencePB) for In Penalty White Box, total score for this message is now
-15

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [scoring] SPF: none ip=2.2.2.2
[email protected] helo=smtp4-out1.enta.net

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] Whitelisted sender address:
[email protected] for recipient [email protected]

2014-05-06 10:39:54 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] Whitelisted sender address:
[email protected] for recipient [email protected]

2014-05-06 10:40:02 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [Plugin] calling plugin
ASSP_AFC

2014-05-06 10:40:02 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] message proxied without
processing (no bad attachments)

2014-05-06 10:40:02 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] [MessageOK] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] message ok [Subject] ->
/usr/local/assp/store/notspam/Subject--93543.eml

2014-05-06 10:40:05 m1-69193-10044 [Worker_3] [TLS-out] 2.2.2.2
<[email protected]> to: [email protected] [SMTP Reply] 250 OK
id=1Whbqs-0001HA-2Y

 

The message as received by the MTA:

 

1Whbc4-00081L-7Z-H

Debian-exim 106 113

<[email protected]>

1399368276 0

-helo_name smtp4-out1.enta.net

-host_address 127.0.0.1.43072

-interface_address 127.0.0.1.125

-received_protocol esmtps

-body_linecount 531

-max_received_linelength 79

-tls_cipher TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16

XX

1

[email protected]

 

263P Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=smtp4-out1.enta.net)

               by mail.smtphost.co.uk with esmtps
(TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)

               (Exim 4.76)

               (envelope-from <[email protected]>)

               id 1Whbc4-00081L-7Z

               for [email protected]; Tue, 06 May 2014 10:24:40 +0100

 

1Whbc4-00081L-7Z-D

oMak7QVx6d/SokjKsxJ+bPUdxUikK5G

cqO5HWmOxkjX5cEHb+FU2JhL8wHzbgOOaYzgJu6MR0Bpc4bHrwRUDKythiRgcU0xDWnJbOcHNeWf

tWKl/wDs+eMlRdzG0DnHqsqnp+FeoSRhmIOTjHHc1wXxu09tR+FPi62XL79OmK8Z6IT0q7gfkb4Q

 

#Message Continues

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out:
&#149; 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity
&#149; Requirements for releasing software faster
&#149; Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce
_______________________________________________
Assp-test mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test

Reply via email to