> -----Original Message----- > From: David Woodhouse [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:15 PM > To: Dave Evans > Cc: [email protected]; Raymond Jette > Subject: Re: [exim] Issues with greylisting > > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 12:03 +1300, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Exim _will_ add a Message-Id: header under certain > circumstances, but > > I don't believe it does so this early -- so $h_message-id > should still > > be empty at the time we're testing it. > > Having looked at Raymond's logs, it seems that you're right. > The Message-Id is being added by Exim locally and thus the > hash is coming out differently. You can tell from the > rejection message. One says: > > Greylisted <<[email protected]>> from > <[email protected]> for offences: We greylist all mail > > And the other says: > > Greylisted <<[email protected]>> from > <[email protected]> for offences: We greylist all mail, > > > On my own systems, this doesn't happen. I get: > > 2010-01-19 23:09:47 +0000 1NXNCH-0007Ao-12 H=(me) > [131.203.100.9] F=<[email protected]> temporarily > rejected after DATA: > Greylisted <> from <[email protected]> for offences: > Sending host 131.203.100.9 lacks correct reverse DNS or CSA > for HELO 'me',Message has 4.9 SpamAssassin points,Message has > no Message-Id: > header, which RFC5322 says it SHOULD,
I have setup my system so greylisting happens before SpamAssassin. It is setup to greylist all mail. If you want I can send you a copy of my acl_check_data. > Note the empty Message-Id. > > So what's different in Raymond's setup such that > $h_message-id is actually set when we evaluate it? What > version of Exim is this? > I am running Exim version 4.69. > -- > dwmw2 > > > > -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
