Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
>>> >> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: >> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped >>> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion? >>> >>> > . . . >> My set up is a little odd in that my pipeline used getmail to retrieve >> mail from my ISP's smarthost and precedes my MTA with a pipeline like >> this, where 'spamkiller' is a simple C program that looks at the spam >> headers to see whether its spam or ham. Spam is sent to a holding area >> and ham is passed to Postfix for delivery. Here's a diagram: >> >> getmail --> spamc --> spamkiller --ham--> sendmail --> postfix >>| >>+--spam--> spam quarantine store >> >> Most people simply splice spamc into Postfix's internal pipeline, >> defined in master.cf, which connects its mail reception process to its >> delivery process. >> >> Martin > > Oh, now you are asking me to think, or, revisit stuff I setup a looong time > ago. > > I use fetchmail on a different box to pull mail from several accounts at an > ISP and send those > messages to the SA/postfix box. > > I can post the spamassassin line from master.cf if needed but basically SA > and sendmail/postfix are on the same box, > and when anti-spam processing is complete postfix then delivers to yet > another box for final disposal. > > joe a. > > Well, success, I think anyway. This seems to do it from the command line" /usr/bin/spamc -s 75 < test.txt | /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i "$@" Thanks for the kick. joe a/ -- +++ joea@@j4computers.com https://www.j4computers.com 845-687-3734 +++
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
>>> > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > >> > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped >> > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion? >> >> > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a >> > taste, as I can follow / >> var/log/mail and see activity at the precise time I feed it, but the >> message does not seem to be delivered. >> >> I've tried some other off box methods as well, including using CURL >> which is purported to have smtp ability, yet I get syntax >> errors or invalid option as the touted features do not exist in >> versions in use here. >> > What are you doing with the message after it comes back from spamc? > > spamc should be in some sort of pipeline that grabs the message after it > has had X-Spam headers inserted and pass it to whatever will queue it > for the intended recipient's MUA. > > My set up is a little odd in that my pipeline used getmail to retrieve > mail from my ISP's smarthost and precedes my MTA with a pipeline like > this, where 'spamkiller' is a simple C program that looks at the spam > headers to see whether its spam or ham. Spam is sent to a holding area > and ham is passed to Postfix for delivery. Here's a diagram: > > getmail --> spamc --> spamkiller --ham--> sendmail --> postfix >| >+--spam--> spam quarantine store > > Most people simply splice spamc into Postfix's internal pipeline, > defined in master.cf, which connects its mail reception process to its > delivery process. > > Martin Oh, now you are asking me to think, or, revisit stuff I setup a looong time ago. I use fetchmail on a different box to pull mail from several accounts at an ISP and send those messages to the SA/postfix box. I can post the spamassassin line from master.cf if needed but basically SA and sendmail/postfix are on the same box, and when anti-spam processing is complete postfix then delivers to yet another box for final disposal. joe a. -- +++ joea@@j4computers.com https://www.j4computers.com 845-687-3734 +++
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 18:38 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > > > Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped > > > "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion? > > > From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a > > taste, as I can follow / > var/log/mail and see activity at the precise time I feed it, but the > message does not seem to be delivered. > > I've tried some other off box methods as well, including using CURL > which is purported to have smtp ability, yet I get syntax > errors or invalid option as the touted features do not exist in > versions in use here. > What are you doing with the message after it comes back from spamc? spamc should be in some sort of pipeline that grabs the message after it has had X-Spam headers inserted and pass it to whatever will queue it for the intended recipient's MUA. My set up is a little odd in that my pipeline used getmail to retrieve mail from my ISP's smarthost and precedes my MTA with a pipeline like this, where 'spamkiller' is a simple C program that looks at the spam headers to see whether its spam or ham. Spam is sent to a holding area and ham is passed to Postfix for delivery. Here's a diagram: getmail --> spamc --> spamkiller --ham--> sendmail --> postfix | +--spam--> spam quarantine store Most people simply splice spamc into Postfix's internal pipeline, defined in master.cf, which connects its mail reception process to its delivery process. Martin
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 22:34 +, RW wrote: > A lot of us rely on SA stipping X-Spam-* headers, so header-based > filtering into a spam folder works correctly. This includes numerous > mail hosting and freemail providers. > Interesting: I've just rechecked this using your last message in this conversation and it has worked as you expected it to: - saved as an mbox format file by Evolution - fed to spamd using spamc and grabbed on its return by less for inspection - the original three X-Spam headers were replaced by three new ones recognised by a different hostname (expected) and slightly different SA score. I don't know when this started to work: I've been using SA since around 2004 and back then I was certainly seeing both the old and new sets of X-Spam headers if I ran a message through my SA test systrem, otherwise I'd never have written the 'cleaner' script. As it happens, 'cleaner' does nothing to a message except copy it if there are no X-Spam headers in the file, so no harm done apart from a few wasted cycles. Thanks for prodding me into checking it just now. Martin
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
>>> >> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, >>> after making some SA tweaks. >>> >> I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly >> received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set. >> >> Essentially, all I do is: >> >> 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam >>headers injected when the piece if spam was received will still be >>there after I've run the test. This is confusing rather than harmful, >>but the cleaner is just a script using awk. See below. >> >> 2) pass the message through spamd by running: >> >> spamc --max-size=200 > >>and examine the result >> > > Thanks. Helpful. I did not test the cleaner as I had already, in effect, > "sanitized" the message. > > What I had hoped to do was allow this to flow though and be delivered to the > end point, as if under normal circumstances. > > joe a. > Gentlefolks . . . Is there any tangent down this path were I can get the dropped "test" message to actually flow through, in "normal" fashion? >From logs I can see that spamd does seem to give the message a taste, as I >can follow / var/log/mail and see activity at the precise time I feed it, but the message does not seem to be delivered. I've tried some other off box methods as well, including using CURL which is purported to have smtp ability, yet I get syntax errors or invalid option as the touted features do not exist in versions in use here. -- +++ joea@@j4computers.com https://www.j4computers.com 845-687-3734 +++
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:32:29 + Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote: > > > There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers > > itself. > Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some > spam from Evolution by using "File:Save as mbox" to capture it as a > .txt file and then feed it into SA as I showed: > > $ spamc --max-size=200 > what is displayed always contains both the X-Spam headers added as the > message hit my system and a second set of X-Spam headers added by that > test shot. That's strange: $ printf 'X-Spam-Status: 12345\n' | spamc -u test | grep X-Spam-Status X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=11.4 required=5.0 autolearn=disabled $ printf 'X-Spam-Foo: 12345\n' | spamc -u test | grep X-Spam-Foo $ A lot of us rely on SA stipping X-Spam-* headers, so header-based filtering into a spam folder works correctly. This includes numerous mail hosting and freemail providers. My guess is that when you saw this you had corrupted the headers in some way.
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 21:00 +, RW wrote: > There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers itself. > Yes, I've seem that said several times, BUT every time I capture some spam from Evolution by using "File:Save as mbox" to capture it as a .txt file and then feed it into SA as I showed: $ spamc --max-size=200 domainhost -> ISP --getmail--> SA --sendmail--> Postfix because this allows me to send and receive mail without having any ports open in my firewall. Martin
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 17:42:34 + Martin Gregorie wrote: > I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly > received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set. > > Essentially, all I do is: > > 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam >headers injected when the piece if spam was received will still be >there after I've run the test. This is confusing rather than > harmful, but the cleaner is just a script using awk. See below. There shouldn't be any need for this as SA strips such headers itself.
Re: Getting spamass-milter to work with postfix
Thanks for that. I wasn't sure which config to add it to. I now have the following in /etc/default/spamass-milter... OPTIONS="-u spamass-milter -i 127.0.0.1 -- -s 800" ... which works.
Re: Getting spamass-milter to work with postfix
On 28.11.19 16:40, Linkcheck wrote: Belated thans again to all who helped me with this problem. It has been running reasonably well since my last posting. I now have only a couple of minor problems left, one of which (I think) more suited to the postfix forum. The other one is max-size. I had gradually uprated this to 800 in the content filter .sh file, called via master.cf. I have tried setting it in /etc/default/spamassassin as --max-size=800 (which accepts it but ignores it) and in spamass-milter which does not accept either the long or short version (which is expected from the docs). Where should I specify this and how, please? spamass-milter calls spamc, which by default avoids mail bigger than 500KB. you must provide extra spamc parameters in /etc/default/spamass-milter. see man spamass-milter. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Windows 2000: 640 MB ought to be enough for anybody
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
>>> > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: >> I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, >> after making some SA tweaks. >> > I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly > received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set. > > Essentially, all I do is: > > 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam >headers injected when the piece if spam was received will still be >there after I've run the test. This is confusing rather than harmful, >but the cleaner is just a script using awk. See below. > > 2) pass the message through spamd by running: > > spamc --max-size=200 >and examine the result > Thanks. Helpful. I did not test the cleaner as I had already, in effect, "sanitized" the message. What I had hoped to do was allow this to flow though and be delivered to the end point, as if under normal circumstances. joe a. -- +++ joea@@j4computers.com https://www.j4computers.com 845-687-3734 +++
Re: Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 11:56 -0500, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, > after making some SA tweaks. > I do something similar with with collection of test messages, mostly received spam, that I use to test my local SA rule set. Essentially, all I do is: 1) remove all headers starting with 'X-Spam', otherwise the X-Spam headers injected when the piece if spam was received will still be there after I've run the test. This is confusing rather than harmful, but the cleaner is just a script using awk. See below. 2) pass the message through spamd by running: spamc --max-size=200 temp.txt mv temp.txt $1 } if [ $# -gt 0 ] then for f in $* do clean $f done else for f in data/*.txt do clean $f done fi == end of cleaner === Martin
Yet another simple question - how to reprocess an email
Well, here goes, asbestos pants on. I did, honest, do some searching before asking this. I want to be able to reprocess a particular email, marked as SPAM, after making some SA tweaks. Basically I have saved the email, which was received as an attachment, as a text file. Thinking to simply drop this file into a queue somewhere in the receive process and just let her rip. However I was given pause by the message numbering that sendmail seems to use. The process is mail is delivered by a "fetching" server, to a sendmail box, which also hosts SA, after processing is delivered to another on prem box. Thanks for any assistance. -- +++ joea@@j4computers.com https://www.j4computers.com 845-687-3734 +++
Re: Rule to catch a certain email adress?
On 2019-11-28 13:43, Anders Gustafsson wrote: Assume I want to give extra points to e-p...@pedago.fi? This is our adress as given on our wesite so many spammers harvest that. I waht to bump it sligtly, but have been unable to write a regexp that catches it. Can anyone help? this could work: blacklist_to e-p...@pedago.fi # SET SCORE TO WHATEVER YOU WANT score USER_IN_BLACKLIST_TO 3.0 h2h
Re: Getting spamass-milter to work with postfix
Belated thans again to all who helped me with this problem. It has been running reasonably well since my last posting. I now have only a couple of minor problems left, one of which (I think) more suited to the postfix forum. The other one is max-size. I had gradually uprated this to 800 in the content filter .sh file, called via master.cf. I have tried setting it in /etc/default/spamassassin as --max-size=800 (which accepts it but ignores it) and in spamass-milter which does not accept either the long or short version (which is expected from the docs). Where should I specify this and how, please?
Re: shortcircuit on alread x-spam-flag: yes
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Philipp Ewald wrote: Hi Tobi, we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone (spammer, other mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to Yes? but like RW wrote: If you want to match on such a header you need to rewrite it before SA sees it. i thought shortcircuit will test before any other tests but header was remove before shortcircuit :( I have a lot to learn... Thanks for help maybe i try this again... later :-) The proper place to bypass SpamAssassin processing for any reason is in your glue layer. How is SA hooked into your MTA? Look into that, and see if there's a way to tell the glue to skip SA entirely if that header already exists. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anyone has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians. -- Alexander Pope --- 973 days since the first commercial re-flight of an orbital booster (SpaceX)
Re: shortcircuit on alread x-spam-flag: yes
It makes no difference for your network traffic, only SA 4.0 / trunk handles shortcircuiting and network lookups properly. But sure, marginal CPU savings.. On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:50:31PM +0100, Philipp Ewald wrote: > Hi Benny, > > thanks for your link! ( i did not follow any BOFH Rules from this site ;-) ) > > i check headers and if "X-SPam-Flag: YES" is set, i write a custom Header > from postfix. > > and in Spamassassin i search this custom header in shortcircuit. > > It works! > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=98.7 tagged_above=- required=5 > tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SHORTCIRCUIT=100, SpamFlag=1] > autolearn=disabled > > i set this priority lower then DNSWL so save some network traffic > > kind regards > Philipp > > > Am 27.11.19 um 18:30 schrieb Benny Pedersen: > >On 2019-11-27 17:56, Philipp Ewald wrote: > > > >>we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone > >>(spammer, other mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to > >>Yes? > > > >trustness > > > >https://www.techiepark.com/tutorials/blocking-spam-using-postfix-header_checks-and-spamassassin/ > > bad example on what not to do :) > > > >http://www.techiepark.com/resources/postfix-header-checks/ really want to > >make postfix a spam filter ? > > > >bettr is to use fuglu.org as a before queue content filter with then can > >reject spam :=) > > > >i have still not seen mimedefang working > > > > > > -- > Philipp Ewald > Administrator > > DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln > Telefon: +49 221 6500-532, Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: > philipp.ew...@digionline.de > > AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640 > Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain > > Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds
Re: shortcircuit on alread x-spam-flag: yes
Hi Benny, thanks for your link! ( i did not follow any BOFH Rules from this site ;-) ) i check headers and if "X-SPam-Flag: YES" is set, i write a custom Header from postfix. and in Spamassassin i search this custom header in shortcircuit. It works! X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=98.7 tagged_above=- required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SHORTCIRCUIT=100, SpamFlag=1] autolearn=disabled i set this priority lower then DNSWL so save some network traffic kind regards Philipp Am 27.11.19 um 18:30 schrieb Benny Pedersen: On 2019-11-27 17:56, Philipp Ewald wrote: we only want to trust "X-Spam-Flag: YES" or why should someone (spammer, other mailserver with outgoing spamfilter) set this Flag to Yes? trustness https://www.techiepark.com/tutorials/blocking-spam-using-postfix-header_checks-and-spamassassin/ bad example on what not to do :) http://www.techiepark.com/resources/postfix-header-checks/ really want to make postfix a spam filter ? bettr is to use fuglu.org as a before queue content filter with then can reject spam :=) i have still not seen mimedefang working -- Philipp Ewald Administrator DigiOnline GmbH, Probsteigasse 15 - 19, 50670 Köln Telefon: +49 221 6500-532, Fax: +49 221 6500-690, E-Mail: philipp.ew...@digionline.de AG Köln HRB 27711, St.-Nr. 5215 5811 0640 Geschäftsführer: Werner Grafenhain Informationen zum Datenschutz: www.digionline.de/ds
Rule to catch a certain email adress?
Assume I want to give extra points to e-p...@pedago.fi? This is our adress as given on our wesite so many spammers harvest that. I waht to bump it sligtly, but have been unable to write a regexp that catches it. Can anyone help? >>> RW 2019-11-28 03:30 >>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:59:47 +0100 Tobi wrote: > Hi, > > is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are > not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was > not running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running > with ‑‑debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. What version are you running? I just tried adding _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ in a header on 3.4.2 and it worked.
Re: LASTEXTERNALRDNS and LASTEXTERNALHELO not set in PerMsgStatus.pm ?
Henrik,
thanks a lot, can confirm your fix works in my tests :-)
Cheers
tobi
Am 28.11.19 um 11:09 schrieb Henrik K:
>
> Fixed:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1870552
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>>
>> Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there. It
>> seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:20:39AM +0100, Tobi wrote:
>>> Henrik
>>>
>>> But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
>>> _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
>>> I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a testmessage.
>>> As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
>>> tests based on that tags are run. Removing the lines from pm and debug
>>> shows that the tests are **not** run anymore.
>>>
>>> So I somewhat doubt that the set_tag "code is redundant and should be
>>> removed" :-)
>>>
>>> Using: SA 3.4.2 on centos7 / perl 5.16.3
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> tobi
>>>
>>> Am 28.11.19 um 08:36 schrieb Henrik K:
There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already dynamically
returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
completely redundant and should be removed.
BEGIN {
LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
my $pms = shift;
my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
$lasthop ? $lasthop->{ip} : '';
},
LASTEXTERNALRDNS => sub {
my $pms = shift;
my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
$lasthop ? $lasthop->{rdns} : '';
},
LASTEXTERNALHELO => sub {
my $pms = shift;
my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
$lasthop ? $lasthop->{helo} : '';
},
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and trunk,
> it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure your
> fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
>
> Have you been using that change in production?
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
>> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was not
>> running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running with
>> --debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
>> _LASTEXTERNALIP_ is set. Also the man page states that the two tags
>> should exist.
>>
>> In PerMsgStatus.pm I saw that everything is prepared for the two tags
>> but they finally not set (around line 1721). So I changed to
>>
>>> if ($lasthop) {
>>>$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALIP', $lasthop->{ip});
>>>$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALRDNS', $lasthop->{rdns});
>>>$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALHELO', $lasthop->{helo});
>>> }
>>
>> and --debug shows that the tags are now set and the askdns test is run.
>>
>> So I wonder if the code has just been forgotten or if there are deeper
>> reasons to not set the tags?
>> If no deeper reasons exist it would be nice to have those two tags set
>> as default in PerMsgStatus.pm
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>>
>> tobi
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> kmcgr...@apache.org
>
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
Re: LASTEXTERNALRDNS and LASTEXTERNALHELO not set in PerMsgStatus.pm ?
I never would have found that. Nice job.
Any chance you can create a regression test for the issue ?
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 05:09 Henrik K wrote:
>
> Fixed:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1870552
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there.
> It
> > seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:20:39AM +0100, Tobi wrote:
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > > But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
> > > _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
> > > I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a
> testmessage.
> > > As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
> > > tests based on that tags are run. Removing the lines from pm and debug
> > > shows that the tests are **not** run anymore.
> > >
> > > So I somewhat doubt that the set_tag "code is redundant and should be
> > > removed" :-)
> > >
> > > Using: SA 3.4.2 on centos7 / perl 5.16.3
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > tobi
> > >
> > > Am 28.11.19 um 08:36 schrieb Henrik K:
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already
> dynamically
> > > > returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
> > > > completely redundant and should be removed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BEGIN {
> > > > LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
> > > > my $pms = shift;
> > > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{ip} : '';
> > > > },
> > > >
> > > > LASTEXTERNALRDNS => sub {
> > > > my $pms = shift;
> > > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{rdns} : '';
> > > > },
> > > >
> > > > LASTEXTERNALHELO => sub {
> > > > my $pms = shift;
> > > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{helo} : '';
> > > > },
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > > >> After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and
> trunk,
> > > >> it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure
> your
> > > >> fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Have you been using that change in production?
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> KAM
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject
> are
> > > >>> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test
> was not
> > > >>> running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running
> with
> > > >>> --debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
> > > >>> _LASTEXTERNALIP_ is set. Also the man page states that the two tags
> > > >>> should exist.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In PerMsgStatus.pm I saw that everything is prepared for the two
> tags
> > > >>> but they finally not set (around line 1721). So I changed to
> > > >>>
> > > if ($lasthop) {
> > > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALIP', $lasthop->{ip});
> > > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALRDNS', $lasthop->{rdns});
> > > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALHELO', $lasthop->{helo});
> > > }
> > > >>>
> > > >>> and --debug shows that the tags are now set and the askdns test is
> run.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So I wonder if the code has just been forgotten or if there are
> deeper
> > > >>> reasons to not set the tags?
> > > >>> If no deeper reasons exist it would be nice to have those two tags
> set
> > > >>> as default in PerMsgStatus.pm
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> tobi
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Kevin A. McGrail
> > > >> kmcgr...@apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > > >> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > > >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> > > >
>
Re: LASTEXTERNALRDNS and LASTEXTERNALHELO not set in PerMsgStatus.pm ?
Fixed:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1870552
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:29:19AM +0200, Henrik K wrote:
>
> Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there. It
> seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:20:39AM +0100, Tobi wrote:
> > Henrik
> >
> > But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
> > _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
> > I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a testmessage.
> > As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
> > tests based on that tags are run. Removing the lines from pm and debug
> > shows that the tests are **not** run anymore.
> >
> > So I somewhat doubt that the set_tag "code is redundant and should be
> > removed" :-)
> >
> > Using: SA 3.4.2 on centos7 / perl 5.16.3
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > tobi
> >
> > Am 28.11.19 um 08:36 schrieb Henrik K:
> > >
> > > There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already dynamically
> > > returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
> > > completely redundant and should be removed.
> > >
> > >
> > > BEGIN {
> > > LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
> > > my $pms = shift;
> > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{ip} : '';
> > > },
> > >
> > > LASTEXTERNALRDNS => sub {
> > > my $pms = shift;
> > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{rdns} : '';
> > > },
> > >
> > > LASTEXTERNALHELO => sub {
> > > my $pms = shift;
> > > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{helo} : '';
> > > },
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > >> After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and trunk,
> > >> it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure your
> > >> fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
> > >>
> > >> Have you been using that change in production?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> KAM
> > >>
> > >> On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
> > >>> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was not
> > >>> running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running with
> > >>> --debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
> > >>> _LASTEXTERNALIP_ is set. Also the man page states that the two tags
> > >>> should exist.
> > >>>
> > >>> In PerMsgStatus.pm I saw that everything is prepared for the two tags
> > >>> but they finally not set (around line 1721). So I changed to
> > >>>
> > if ($lasthop) {
> > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALIP', $lasthop->{ip});
> > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALRDNS', $lasthop->{rdns});
> > $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALHELO', $lasthop->{helo});
> > }
> > >>>
> > >>> and --debug shows that the tags are now set and the askdns test is run.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I wonder if the code has just been forgotten or if there are deeper
> > >>> reasons to not set the tags?
> > >>> If no deeper reasons exist it would be nice to have those two tags set
> > >>> as default in PerMsgStatus.pm
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> tobi
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Kevin A. McGrail
> > >> kmcgr...@apache.org
> > >>
> > >> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > >> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> > >
Re: LASTEXTERNALRDNS and LASTEXTERNALHELO not set in PerMsgStatus.pm ?
Trunk has already many revamps and fixes for these codes, works there. It
seems 3.4 askdns has trouble using those, investigating minimal fix..
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:20:39AM +0100, Tobi wrote:
> Henrik
>
> But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
> _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
> I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a testmessage.
> As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
> tests based on that tags are run. Removing the lines from pm and debug
> shows that the tests are **not** run anymore.
>
> So I somewhat doubt that the set_tag "code is redundant and should be
> removed" :-)
>
> Using: SA 3.4.2 on centos7 / perl 5.16.3
>
>
> Cheers
>
> tobi
>
> Am 28.11.19 um 08:36 schrieb Henrik K:
> >
> > There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already dynamically
> > returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
> > completely redundant and should be removed.
> >
> >
> > BEGIN {
> > LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
> > my $pms = shift;
> > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{ip} : '';
> > },
> >
> > LASTEXTERNALRDNS => sub {
> > my $pms = shift;
> > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{rdns} : '';
> > },
> >
> > LASTEXTERNALHELO => sub {
> > my $pms = shift;
> > my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> > $lasthop ? $lasthop->{helo} : '';
> > },
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> >> After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and trunk,
> >> it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure your
> >> fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
> >>
> >> Have you been using that change in production?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> KAM
> >>
> >> On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
> >>> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was not
> >>> running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running with
> >>> --debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
> >>> _LASTEXTERNALIP_ is set. Also the man page states that the two tags
> >>> should exist.
> >>>
> >>> In PerMsgStatus.pm I saw that everything is prepared for the two tags
> >>> but they finally not set (around line 1721). So I changed to
> >>>
> if ($lasthop) {
> $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALIP', $lasthop->{ip});
> $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALRDNS', $lasthop->{rdns});
> $self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALHELO', $lasthop->{helo});
> }
> >>>
> >>> and --debug shows that the tags are now set and the askdns test is run.
> >>>
> >>> So I wonder if the code has just been forgotten or if there are deeper
> >>> reasons to not set the tags?
> >>> If no deeper reasons exist it would be nice to have those two tags set
> >>> as default in PerMsgStatus.pm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> tobi
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin A. McGrail
> >> kmcgr...@apache.org
> >>
> >> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> >> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> >
Re: LASTEXTERNALRDNS and LASTEXTERNALHELO not set in PerMsgStatus.pm ?
Henrik
But my current testing clearly shows that without the explicit set_tag
_LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ and _LASTEXTERNALHELO_ won't be set.
I'm testing this using spamassassin in debug mode to scan a testmessage.
As soon as I re-add the set_tag to PerMsgStatus.pm the tags are set and
tests based on that tags are run. Removing the lines from pm and debug
shows that the tests are **not** run anymore.
So I somewhat doubt that the set_tag "code is redundant and should be
removed" :-)
Using: SA 3.4.2 on centos7 / perl 5.16.3
Cheers
tobi
Am 28.11.19 um 08:36 schrieb Henrik K:
>
> There is nothing missing. All the LASTEXT* tags are already dynamically
> returning functions. If anything, that if ($lasthop) set_tag code is
> completely redundant and should be removed.
>
>
> BEGIN {
> LASTEXTERNALIP => sub {
> my $pms = shift;
> my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> $lasthop ? $lasthop->{ip} : '';
> },
>
> LASTEXTERNALRDNS => sub {
> my $pms = shift;
> my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> $lasthop ? $lasthop->{rdns} : '';
> },
>
> LASTEXTERNALHELO => sub {
> my $pms = shift;
> my $lasthop = $pms->{relays_external}->[0];
> $lasthop ? $lasthop->{helo} : '';
> },
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:18:20AM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> After a 10 minute or so study of the issue and comparing 3.4 and trunk,
>> it definitely looks like the code is missing. I am not 100% sure your
>> fix works but it's better than it currently exists :-)
>>
>> Have you been using that change in production?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KAM
>>
>> On 11/27/2019 6:59 AM, Tobi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> is there any specific reason why the two tags mentioned in subject are
>>> not set in SA? It took me a while to find out why an askdns test was not
>>> running. The test relies on _LASTEXTERNALRDNS_ but after running with
>>> --debug I found that those tags are not set by SA. Although
>>> _LASTEXTERNALIP_ is set. Also the man page states that the two tags
>>> should exist.
>>>
>>> In PerMsgStatus.pm I saw that everything is prepared for the two tags
>>> but they finally not set (around line 1721). So I changed to
>>>
if ($lasthop) {
$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALIP', $lasthop->{ip});
$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALRDNS', $lasthop->{rdns});
$self->set_tag('LASTEXTERNALHELO', $lasthop->{helo});
}
>>>
>>> and --debug shows that the tags are now set and the askdns test is run.
>>>
>>> So I wonder if the code has just been forgotten or if there are deeper
>>> reasons to not set the tags?
>>> If no deeper reasons exist it would be nice to have those two tags set
>>> as default in PerMsgStatus.pm
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> tobi
>>
>> --
>> Kevin A. McGrail
>> kmcgr...@apache.org
>>
>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
