date:20070125

Re: exact info about "skip_rbl_checks" needed

2007-01-25 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea


David B Funk wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:


Some of my incoming mesasges involve messages forwarded to my server via a rule 
from accounts that some of my clients have on other ISPs mail servers. For such 
incoming messages, I have been creating a temporary copy of the message where 
all headers that were ADDED by either the other ISP and/or my server are 
removed so that the message is brought back to the state that it was in when 
originally sent by the original sender (just prior to the ISP's mail server 
received it). This way, SA can work with that the potential spammer actually 
sent, without any received headers added.

But is that really necessary? Or would I get the same results if, under my 
configuration described above, I just left the extra added headers in there?

To get the same functionality without stripping headers you'd have to
add the forwarders' IPs to your trusted and internal networks config.


Pardon my confusion, but wouldn't it be sufficient to just add them to
the trusted networks list? (IE not adding them to internal too).


If you haven't already defined internal_networks, yes, since 
internal_networks will default to whatever you use for trusted_networks.


Having them in both trusted and internal networks is more similar to 
stripping the received headers than having them in trusted but not internal.




IIUR, internal networks are for clients that will source messages,
trusted is for MTAs that feed you. Am I missing something?


I think you are.

 - for something to be internal it has to be trusted
   (you can't have an internal but not trusted relay)

 - relays that act as MXes need to be both trusted and internal

 - all relays between an MX and SA need to also be both trusted and
   internal


Adding the forwarding situation described:

 - the MX for the account forwarding to the local account is acting
   as an MX for the final destination account (forwarding is messy)

 - all relays between an MX (the one for the account forwarding to
   the local account) and SA (thus all relays between the remote MX
   and your MX) need to be both trusted and internal



On the submission side (not involved in the original question) it goes 
something like this:


 - if the MSA isn't an MX or internal relay between an MX and SA
   you want it to be trusted but not internal; otherwise it has to
   be both trusted and internal and you'd better have auth tokens
   in the received headers (or be using the POPAuth plugin)


Daryl

RE: Possible false positive?

2007-01-25 Thread Aydin SASMAZ

Actually I didn't defined that rule, it poped up, there was not any problem
days ago..I've looked up at /etc/MailScanner/spam.assassin.prefs.conf or
there is no .spamassassin/local_pref file also. Can't find

How can I find where it is...

thanks

Hasan Aydın ŞAŞMAZ

Genel Müdür Yardımcısı

BTEĞİTİM

Tel : 0212 274 6998

Fax: 0212 267 4725

-Original Message-
From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 Ocak 2007 Cuma 03:02
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible false positive?

On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Aydin SASMAZ wrote:
> adds a test score Fw_mail 100.00 but I got the email because my email
[...]
> What is the real cause of this and how prevent spamassassin adding this
> Fw_mail 100 score any forwarded email

"Fw_mail" is not a standard rule included with SpamAssassin.  You'll want to
find where you define this rule in your configs and disable it.

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
If a can of Alpo costs 38 cents, would it cost $2.50 in Dog Dollars?

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: exact info about "skip_rbl_checks" needed

2007-01-25 Thread David B Funk

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:

> >
> > Some of my incoming mesasges involve messages forwarded to my server via a 
> > rule from accounts that some of my clients have on other ISPs mail servers. 
> > For such incoming messages, I have been creating a temporary copy of the 
> > message where all headers that were ADDED by either the other ISP and/or my 
> > server are removed so that the message is brought back to the state that it 
> > was in when originally sent by the original sender (just prior to the ISP's 
> > mail server received it). This way, SA can work with that the potential 
> > spammer actually sent, without any received headers added.
> >
> > But is that really necessary? Or would I get the same results if, under my 
> > configuration described above, I just left the extra added headers in there?
>
> To get the same functionality without stripping headers you'd have to
> add the forwarders' IPs to your trusted and internal networks config.

Pardon my confusion, but wouldn't it be sufficient to just add them to
the trusted networks list? (IE not adding them to internal too).

IIUR, internal networks are for clients that will source messages,
trusted is for MTAs that feed you. Am I missing something?


-- 
Dave Funk  University of Iowa
College of Engineering
319/335-5751   FAX: 319/384-0549   1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_adminIowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include 
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{

Re: exact info about "skip_rbl_checks" needed

2007-01-25 Thread Daryl C. W. O'Shea

My question... why **exactly** can't webmail line wrap messages? :)

Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:

1st question:

Some of my incoming mesasges involve messages forwarded to my server via a rule
from accounts that some of my clients have on other ISPs mail servers. For such
incoming messages, I have been creating a temporary copy of the message where
all headers that were ADDED by either the other ISP and/or my server are
removed so that the message is brought back to the state that it was in when
originally sent by the original sender (just prior to the ISP's mail server
received it). This way, SA can work with that the potential spammer actually
sent, without any received headers added.

But is that really necessary? Or would I get the same results if, under my
configuration described above, I just left the extra added headers in there?

To get the same functionality without stripping headers you'd have to
add the forwarders' IPs to your trusted and internal networks config.

(I'm concerned that, even with skip_rbl_checks turned off, there might still be SPF checking or
other things going on which then might get messed up if I don't present the message in its
"original" form. PLEASE... let me know if that is the case. This will only be about the
10th time that I've asked what other "network checks" happen besides Razor/DCC when
skip_rbl_checks is set to true.)

SPF checks aren't RBL checks, so skip_rbl_checks doesn't affect them.
Enabling or disabling the SPF plugin and/or rules affects whether SPF
checks are done.

As for what other network checks are done; run a message through in
debug mode and find out. Everything is logged in the debug output.
This'll only be about the 2nd time I've suggested this, 8 more to go to
catch up. :)

2nd question:

Does SA have any problems working with a file that OTHER programs are currently accessing
(in "read" mode)?

Just like any other simultaneous file access, if the lock states are
compatible you're OK. If there is some file in a lock state that isn't
compatible with what SA wants to do SA will continue on after a short
time, so there's no risk in SA hanging up.

67 matches

Mail list logo