Re: Spoofed from address but matched my whitelist -- please clarify

2007-05-02 Thread Kelson

How did you whitelist borland.com?  Did you use...

whitelist_from
whitelist_from_rcvd
whitelist_from_dkim
whitelist_from_spf
...etc?

If you just used whitelist_from, it doesn't do any verification.  It's a 
last-ditch option for cases where more reliable methods aren't possible. 
 So that would just subtract 100 points from anything claiming to be 
from borland.com.


As for the DomainKeys header, it looks like your SA installation didn't 
even check it, since I don't see any DKIM or DomainKeys rules in the 
list of rules that fired.  Do you have either the DKIM or DomainKeys 
plugin enabled?


--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net


RE: Spoofed from address but matched my whitelist -- please clarify

2007-05-02 Thread Dan Barker
whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] borland.com

will probably do what you want. Although Borland doesn't publish an SPF, you
may find all their MXs have borland.com rDNS.

You'd have to watch it a while to see if you miss any legitimate Borland
email that's not via a borland.com server.

Dan

-Original Message-
From: Martin G. Diehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:31 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Spoofed from address but matched my whitelist -- please clarify


Greetings,

I have a piece of SPAM with an obviously spoofed (obvious to me,
that is) from address ... but didn't get flagged as SPAM.

The message claims to originate from borland.com

borland.com has IP 63.175.76.152

The message actually originates from napfehfu 86.60.37.183

borland.com is listed in my whitelist.

My questions ...

(1) Shouldn't this message have been flagged as SPAM?

(2) Is the DomainKey-Signature also spoofed or fake?

(3) Which headers (types of from addresses) are compared to my whitelist?

Some of the significant header lines (I reversed the sequence)

  DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=south.disappoint;
d=borland.com;
 
b=GfpMxmdJQIBAeYlLWrgcDOJbZZJXiYVEpoeUbVUmwMrmrQbfMFvNqqczKSjQWxIoppVlOJSHMQ
iZhlik;

  From: Abbey Delisa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Received: from unknown (HELO napfehfu) (86.60.37.183)
by rbl-mx.nac.net with SMTP; 1 May 2007 16:42:53 -

  Received: from 86.60.37.183 by mx2.oct.nac.net (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], uid 0) with qmail-scanner-1.25
   (clamdscan: 0.88.3/2095. f-prot: 4.6.6/3.16.14. spamassassin: 3.1.0.
   Clear:RC:0(86.60.37.183):.

Here are all of the headers ...
===
 X-UIDL: 1178037793.M276441P78860.mx2.oct.nac.net
 X-Mozilla-Status: 
 X-Mozilla-Status2: 
 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on spamd1.oct
 X-Spam-Level:
 X-Spam-PrefsFile: nac.net/mdiehl
 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-77.8 required=4.7 tests=HTML_FONT_BIG=0.256,
   HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.001,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5,
   RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5,
   RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=1.988,TW_ZW=0.077,
   URIBL_AB_SURBL=3.306,URIBL_BLACK=3,URIBL_JP_SURBL=3.36,
   URIBL_OB_SURBL=2.617,URIBL_SC_SURBL=3.6,USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100
   autolearn=disabled version=3.1.7
 Received: (qmail 78558 invoked by uid 0); 1 May 2007 16:42:54 -
 Received: from 86.60.37.183 by mx2.oct.nac.net (envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED], uid 0) with qmail-scanner-1.25
  (clamdscan: 0.88.3/2095. f-prot: 4.6.6/3.16.14. spamassassin: 3.1.0.
  Clear:RC:0(86.60.37.183):.
  Processed in 0.524071 secs); 01 May 2007 16:42:54 -
 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] via mx2.oct.nac.net
 X-Qmail-Scanner-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25 (Clear:RC:0(86.60.37.183):. Processed in 0.524071
secs)
 X-Qmail-Scanner-NAC-Block-Zips: 1
 X-Qmail-Scanner-NAC-Redirect-This: 0
 X-Qmail-Scanner-NAC-Redirect-To:
 X-Qmail-Scanner-NAC-Scanners-Run:  clamdscan_scanner fprot_scanner
 Received: from unknown (HELO napfehfu) (86.60.37.183)
   by rbl-mx.nac.net with SMTP; 1 May 2007 16:42:53 -
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:42:45 -0800
 From: Abbey Delisa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=south.disappoint;
d=borland.com;

b=GfpMxmdJQIBAeYlLWrgcDOJbZZJXiYVEpoeUbVUmwMrmrQbfMFvNqqczKSjQWxIoppVlOJSHMQ
iZhlik;
 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20060111)
 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Subject: SPECIAL PHARMACY DISCOUNT, you   pay  we ship, no question
asked, established by reputable Canadian Doctor qizwx
 Content-Type: text/html;
   charset=iso-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
===

Thanks for any and all comments, help, or advice.

--
MGD






Re: Spoofed from address but matched my whitelist -- please clarify

2007-05-02 Thread Martin G. Diehl

Kelson wrote:


How did you whitelist borland.com?  Did you use...

whitelist_from
whitelist_from_rcvd
whitelist_from_dkim
whitelist_from_spf
...etc?

If you just used whitelist_from, it doesn't do any verification.  It's a 
last-ditch option for cases where more reliable methods aren't possible. 
 So that would just subtract 100 points from anything claiming to be 
from borland.com.


As for the DomainKeys header, it looks like your SA installation didn't 
even check it, since I don't see any DKIM or DomainKeys rules in the 
list of rules that fired.  Do you have either the DKIM or DomainKeys 
plugin enabled?


I'll ask my ISP (nac.net) about both of those points.

Thanks for the hints.

--
MGD