http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4854
Summary: Received line mis-parsed when sendmail adds "for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.1.1
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Libraries
AssignedTo: [email protected]
ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In received.pm about line# 506 we have:
if (/^from (\S+) /) {
$rdns= $1; # assume this is the rDNS, not HELO. is this
appropriate?
}
In some cases, this is not appropriate, in my case, I'm trying to
catch the case of no rdns using the X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted meta
header. In some cases (see below) The rdns= bit is being
populated with the helo on my system.
It has to do with sendmail adding "for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;" in some
received lines but not others.
Here's the X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted when run through spamassassin:
[3192] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted: [ ip=58.66.128.145
rdns=eypeofflerle.net helo=eypeofflerle.net by=mx01.i-is.com ident=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] intl=0 id=k33C6UXr038269 auth= ]
Here is the actual received header:
Received: from eypeofflerle.net ([58.66.128.145])
by mx01.i-is.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id k33C6UXr038269
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
The set above includes the "for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;" in the header and the
rdns is not correct.
Here is a received line that works fine (notice the rdns= helo= bit)
[3836] dbg: metadata: X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted: [ ip=66.185.126.117 rdns=
helo=math.uni-muenster.de by=mx01.i-is.com ident=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] intl=0 id=k2FJqort087031 auth= ]
Here's the received header on this one:
Received: from math.uni-muenster.de ([66.185.126.117])
by mx01.i-is.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2FJqort087031;
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:52:52 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Other information on my system:
Here is a received header with rdns present. it's after the helo,
between the ()'s before the [IP_ADDRESS] part. When we have no rdns,
it shows up as just ([IP_ADDRESS]) as in the above examples.
Received: from uchoosem.com (207-36-31-72.ptr.primarydns.com [207.36.31.72])
by mx01.i-is.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k32GfMBr059052
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Should I open a bz ticket on this one?
The only difference I can see is that my sendmail is adding:
"for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;" on some messages, and when it's present
everything is working fine, when that is missing
from the received header, received.pm is mis-parsing my header.
HTH!
At first I thought this was to do with MIMEDefang's
option of $AddApparentlyToForSpamAssassin = 1; but this is not true, that's
adding the (envelope-from \S+) at the end of the received line.
It's possible this is fixed in 3.2 already, I just did a mass-check of this rule
using SpamAssassin version 3.2.0-r386260 and it seems to work as expected.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
