Thanks for that -- for some reason, an spf lookup site which I have used says no spf record, are you seeing for covici.com or ccs.covici.com ?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:55:05 -0500, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: > > On 2023-01-18 at 05:08:00 UTC-0500 (Wed, 18 Jan 2023 05:08:00 -0500) > John Covici via mailop <cov...@ccs.covici.com> > is rumored to have said: > > [...] > > Source > > Received: by mail-tester.com (Postfix, from userid 500) > > id 567CCA0BC0; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:59:14 +0100 (CET) > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on > > mail-tester.com > > X-Spam-Level: > > X-Spam-Status: No/0.3/5.0 > > X-Spam-Test-Scores: > > KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.32,SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,SPF_NONE=0.001, > > URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 > > X-Spam-Last-External-IP: 166.84.7.93 > > X-Spam-Last-External-HELO: covici.com > > X-Spam-Last-External-rDNS: debian-2.covici.com > > X-Spam-Date-of-Scan: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:59:14 +0100 > > X-Spam-Report: > > * 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was > > * blocked. See > > * http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block > > * for more information. > > * [URIs: covici.com] > > * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record > > * 0.0 SPF_NONE SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record > > * 0.3 KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS Relay HELO differs from its IP's reverse DNS > > ***** I don't understand this one, I have rdns pointers on > > ccs.covici.com and debian-2.covici.com . > > Those are the names of rules in the SpamAssassin filter that > mail-tester.com unfortunately purports to demonstrate. They are > using an obsolete version of SA with (apparently) local rule > adjustments and they have chronically m isreported the sign of SA > scores, confusing users. As someone who fields SpamAssassin bug > reports, I despise them. > > KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS means that one of the trustworthy set of > Received headers shows a handoff from a machine that identified > itself (in the EHLO or HELO step of the transaction) with a name > that did not match the name that the connecting IP's PTR record > points to, which does resolve back to the connecting IP. This is > a minor issue, and while it is more common in spam, the > correlation is weak enough to earn a fairly low score for that > rule. In the current full SA ruleset it is scored at 0.001: > basically meaningless. > > [...] > > OK, even without dkim and marc, why is gmail rejecting? > > Only GMail can tell you for sure, if even they can. > > Give it some time with your fixed SPF. That *may* be adequate, > but Google changes can take time. > > > -- > Bill Cole > b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org > (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) > Not Currently Available For Hire > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici wb2una cov...@ccs.covici.com _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
