Hi,
> >> doesn't amavisd by any chance use old SA installation/libraries?
>
> On 30.05.22 15:12, Alex wrote:
> >I don't think so - the current paths it uses are:
> >
> >/usr/share/spamassassin
> >/var/lib/spamassassin/4.00/updates_spamassassin_org
> >/var/lib/spamassassin/4.00/kam_sa-chan
>> did you reload/restart amavis after installing new SA?
>> This header is added by amavis which uses SA libraries internally.
On 30.05.22 09:50, Alex wrote:
>Yes, thanks. This has been ongoing for weeks.
doesn't amavisd by any chance use old SA installation/libraries?
On 30.05.22 15:12, Al
On 2022-05-30 at 15:12:34 UTC-0400 (Mon, 30 May 2022 15:12:34 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
[...]
$ spamassassin -t -D DMARC < dmarc-reject1 2>&1|grep -i dmarc
May 30 14:59:14.894 [1250699] dbg: DMARC: using Mail::DMARC::PurePerl
for
DMARC checks
May 30 14:59:15.034 [1250699] dbg: DMAR
>
>
>
> >> did you reload/restart amavis after installing new SA?
> >> This header is added by amavis which uses SA libraries internally.
>
> On 30.05.22 09:50, Alex wrote:
> >Yes, thanks. This has been ongoing for weeks.
>
> doesn't amavisd by any chance use old SA installation/libraries?
>
I don
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-200 required=5
>tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_REPUT_00_12=-0.4, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
>DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DMARC_REJECT=0.1,
>FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25,
>HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.
>
> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-200 required=5
> >tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_REPUT_00_12=-0.4, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
> >DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DMARC_REJECT=0.1,
> >FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25,
> >HTML_IMAGE_
We have been DMARC issues so no, it is not you Are you running the latest
trunk right now? There have been a flurry of patches and some of them are
for this issue.
On 29.05.22 12:41, Alex wrote:
Yes, just downloaded, compiled, and installed the latest as of this moment
and still seeing the s
Hi,
On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 8:10 PM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> There is also a rule update for priority levels. Did you install the
> latest rules too?
>
Yes, sa-update runs every day. Last run was 00:29 this morning.
There is also a rule update for priority levels. Did you install the
latest rules too?
R
On Sun, May 29, 2022, 12:41 Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been DMARC issues so no, it is not you Are you running the latest
>> trunk right now? There have been a flurry of patches and some of them are
>>
Hi,
We have been DMARC issues so no, it is not you Are you running the latest
> trunk right now? There have been a flurry of patches and some of them are
> for this issue.
>
Yes, just downloaded, compiled, and installed the latest as of this moment
and still seeing the same problems initially.
On 2022-05-29 17:58, Bill Cole wrote:
check.pm from trunk does not work in current 3.4.6, should it ?
There is no such file in trunk or 3.4.x.
in 3.4.6 i have
total 964
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4360 Apr 9 2021 WhiteListSubject.pm
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 16387 Apr 9 2021 WLBLEval.pm
-r--r--
On 2022-05-29 at 11:16:12 UTC-0400 (Sun, 29 May 2022 17:16:12 +0200)
Benny Pedersen
is rumored to have said:
> On 2022-05-29 16:31, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Version 4 does have pre-releases out and people are testing it. And
>> yes, the project needs testers so we will support questions about
On 2022-05-29 16:31, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Version 4 does have pre-releases out and people are testing it. And
yes, the project needs testers so we will support questions about 4.0
including the pre-releases and trunk etc. As we work towards a
release.
We have been DMARC issues so no, it is n
Version 4 does have pre-releases out and people are testing it. And yes,
the project needs testers so we will support questions about 4.0 including
the pre-releases and trunk etc. As we work towards a release.
We have been DMARC issues so no, it is not you Are you running the latest
trunk right
On 2022-05-29 14:22, Alex wrote:
Hi, just wondering if anyone else has any ideas on how to solve this?
see what ?
Is everyone with any v4 having problems with DMARC now or is it
something specific to my environment?
spamassassin v4 is not yet released, take it as its not supported yet
Hi, just wondering if anyone else has any ideas on how to solve this?
Is everyone with any v4 having problems with DMARC now or is it something
specific to my environment?
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:36 PM Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:15 PM Bill Cole <
> sausers-20150...@bill
Hi,
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 1:15 PM Bill Cole <
sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-26 at 10:59:29 UTC-0400 (Thu, 26 May 2022 10:59:29 -0400)
> Alex
> is rumored to have said:
>
> [...]
> > Ugh, and again we already have DKIM_AU and SPF_PASS and DMARC_REJECT
> > all
> >
On 2022-05-26 at 10:59:29 UTC-0400 (Thu, 26 May 2022 10:59:29 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
[...]
Ugh, and again we already have DKIM_AU and SPF_PASS and DMARC_REJECT
all
hitting.
Can you get these to match by re-running the same message with the
'spamassassin' script? If so, try it
On 2022-05-26 at 11:05:59 UTC-0400 (Thu, 26 May 2022 11:05:59 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
Hi,
no matter if you have Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC loaded or
not.
Latest trunk has fix for DMARC waiting for SPF and DKIM results.
Might
be
relevant to this thread.
according to
On 2022-05-26 15:34, Alex wrote:
Any further thoughts on this? It appears removing the DMARC perl
library has disabled any DMARC support altogether.
disable kam channel solves it ?
if it does then wait for final spamassassin 4.x.x and hope Mail:DMARC
finaly work with the DMARC plugin in all
Hi,
>> no matter if you have Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC loaded or not.
> >>
> >> Latest trunk has fix for DMARC waiting for SPF and DKIM results. Might
> be
> >> relevant to this thread.
>
> according to:
>
> https://github.com/apache/spamassassin/commit/63fa58d814837f5d12b5d587ab4b72fa3c7
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:40 AM Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Any further thoughts on this? It appears removing the DMARC perl
>> library
>> > > has disabled any DMARC support altogether.
>> >
>> > disabling Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC should
>> > make KAM.cf revert to it's simpler DMARC
>> >
> Any further thoughts on this? It appears removing the DMARC perl library
> > has disabled any DMARC support altogether.
>
> disabling Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC should
> make KAM.cf revert to it's simpler DMARC
> functioality
>
> note that it requires:
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AskDNS
Hi,
> > Any further thoughts on this? It appears removing the DMARC perl library
> > > has disabled any DMARC support altogether.
> >
> > disabling Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC should
> > make KAM.cf revert to it's simpler DMARC
> > functioality
> >
> > note that it requires:
> > Mail::SpamAs
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 03:48:57PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > >I also haven't any references to DMARC whatsoever from any SA rules since
> > > >it was uninstalled.
> > >
> > > >I otherwise have no way of telling if there should have been any hits,
> > > >but
> > > >I'd imagine the
>I also haven't any references to DMARC whatsoever from any SA rules since
>it was uninstalled.
>I otherwise have no way of telling if there should have been any hits, but
>I'd imagine there should have been at least one in 24-hours.
>
>It appears to have disabled DMARC functionality entirely.
K
Hi,
>
> >I also haven't any references to DMARC whatsoever from any SA rules since
> >it was uninstalled.
>
> >I otherwise have no way of telling if there should have been any hits, but
> >I'd imagine there should have been at least one in 24-hours.
> >
> >It appears to have disabled DMARC functio
>On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:09 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> have there been rejects often before?
On 24.05.22 13:58, Alex wrote:
>I have hundreds of these over the last few days (week?), but they could go
>back even further than that. It appears to primarily hit mailing lists or
>statements
>
>
>
> >On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:09 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas >
> >wrote:
> >> have there been rejects often before?
>
> On 24.05.22 13:58, Alex wrote:
> >I have hundreds of these over the last few days (week?), but they could go
> >back even further than that. It appears to primarily hit mailin
>>> >I have perl-Mail-Dmarc-PurePerl-1.20211209-2.fc35.noarch installed.
>>>
>>> ... and this is the perl library.
>>>
>>> I see you have both KAM_DMARC_REJECT and DMARC_REJECT
>>> - KAM_DMARC_REJECT has workarounds if Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC
>>> isn't available, but uses the library if
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:09 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> >>> >I have perl-Mail-Dmarc-PurePerl-1.20211209-2.fc35.noarch installed.
> >>>
> >>> ... and this is the perl library.
> >>>
> >>> I see you have both KAM_DMARC_REJECT and DMARC_REJECT
> >>> - KAM_DMARC_REJECT has workarounds if Mai
>I have perl-Mail-Dmarc-PurePerl-1.20211209-2.fc35.noarch installed.
... and this is the perl library.
I see you have both KAM_DMARC_REJECT and DMARC_REJECT
- KAM_DMARC_REJECT has workarounds if Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC
isn't available, but uses the library if it does.
could you (temp
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:16 PM Alex wrote:
>
>>
>> >I have perl-Mail-Dmarc-PurePerl-1.20211209-2.fc35.noarch installed.
>>
>> ... and this is the perl library.
>>
>> I see you have both KAM_DMARC_REJECT and DMARC_REJECT
>> - KAM_DMARC_REJECT has workarounds if Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC
>
>
>
> >I have perl-Mail-Dmarc-PurePerl-1.20211209-2.fc35.noarch installed.
>
> ... and this is the perl library.
>
> I see you have both KAM_DMARC_REJECT and DMARC_REJECT
> - KAM_DMARC_REJECT has workarounds if Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC
> isn't available, but uses the library if it does.
On 2022-05-23 10:11, giova...@paclan.it wrote:
starting from r1900857, official ASF channels are loaded first, then
all other channels in alphabetical order.
I would like to better check the original email if possible.
On 23.05.22 11:01, Benny Pedersen wrote:
dmarc plugin would have to inhirit
On 22.05.22 12:25, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>#1 you can use the welcomelist entries but NOT the welcomelist_auth
>entries if DMARC is failing.
On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 1:51 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
isn't welcomelist_auth okay with DKIM_VALID_AU ?
On 22.05.22 15:17, Alex wrote:
It loo
On 2022-05-23 10:11, giova...@paclan.it wrote:
starting from r1900857, official ASF channels are loaded first, then
all other channels in alphabetical order.
I would like to better check the original email if possible.
dmarc plugin would have to inhirit AuthRes results, imho current dmarc
pl
On 5/22/22 18:25, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Alex,
>
> #1 you can use the welcomelist entries but NOT the welcomelist_auth entries
> if DMARC is failing.
>
> #2 There are definitely some issues with SA 4.0 Trunk and DMARC issues that
> we are working through, sorry to say it's been rougher than
On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 1:51 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 22.05.22 12:25, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> >#1 you can use the welcomelist entries but NOT the welcomelist_auth
> entries
> >if DMARC is failing.
>
> isn't welcomelist_auth okay with DKIM_VALID_AU ?
>
It looks like welcomelist_aut
On 22.05.22 12:25, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
#1 you can use the welcomelist entries but NOT the welcomelist_auth entries
if DMARC is failing.
isn't welcomelist_auth okay with DKIM_VALID_AU ?
#2 There are definitely some issues with SA 4.0 Trunk and DMARC issues that
we are working through, sorr
Alex,
#1 you can use the welcomelist entries but NOT the welcomelist_auth entries
if DMARC is failing.
#2 There are definitely some issues with SA 4.0 Trunk and DMARC issues that
we are working through, sorry to say it's been rougher than I wanted too.
But we have it in production and we are work
Hi, I think this is another - this one also includes KAM_DMARC_REJECT
https://pastebin.com/9g9VrgVK
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
* domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID
Hi, is it possible the DMARC_REJECT problem still exists?
https://pastebin.com/DCu9cq4t
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK
Hi,
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:00 PM Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> I believe this is a bug and fixed in trunk.
>
> On 5/10/2022 1:55 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> > Looks like a bug. It should not be possible to hit DKIM_VALID_AU and
> also DMARC_REJECT and/or KAM_DMARC_REJECT
>
This was from svn version
On 2022-05-10 20:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
From: nore...@ess.firstdata.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple;
s=6g5c7kdjkv3qjrxjsdzn3325ejghli53; d=ess.firstdata.com;
t=1652117979;
h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version
I believe this is a bug and fixed in trunk.
On 5/10/2022 1:55 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
Looks like a bug. It should not be possible to hit DKIM_VALID_AU and also
DMARC_REJECT and/or KAM_DMARC_REJECT
--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache S
On 2022-05-10 20:39, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Monday, May 9th, 2022 at 20:35, Alex
wrote:
I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when
mxlookup says the DMARC record is just fine.
https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
* 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
* 6.0 KAM
On Monday, May 9th, 2022 at 20:35, Alex wrote:
I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when mxlookup
says the DMARC record is just fine.
https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
* 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
* 6.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on t
On 2022-05-09 at 14:35:58 UTC-0400 (Mon, 9 May 2022 14:35:58 -0400)
Alex
is rumored to have said:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when
> mxlookup says the DMARC record is just fine.
>
> https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
>
> * 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject p
On 2022-05-09 at 17:28:59 UTC-0400 (Mon, 09 May 2022 21:28:59 +)
Laurent S. <110ef9e3086d8405c2929e34be5b4...@protonmail.ch>
is rumored to have said:
> On Monday, May 9th, 2022 at 20:35, Alex wrote:
>
>
>> I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when
>> mxlookup says
On Monday, May 9th, 2022 at 20:35, Alex wrote:
> I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when mxlookup
> says the DMARC record is just fine.
> https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
>
> * 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
> * 6.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT DKIM has Failed or SPF has f
On 2022-05-09 20:35, Alex wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when
mxlookup says the DMARC record is just fine.
https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
* 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
* 6.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the
messag
On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 14:35 -0400, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC
> when mxlookup says the DMARC record is just fine.
>
> https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
>
> * 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
> * 6.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT DKIM has Failed o
Hi,
I'm trying to understand why this email from a bank fails DMARC when
mxlookup says the DMARC record is just fine.
https://pastebin.com/0T4Gjn3v
* 1.8 DMARC_REJECT DMARC reject policy
* 6.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the message
* and the domain has a DMAR
54 matches
Mail list logo
