Hello Bill,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 8:17:56 PM, you wrote:
BC> You are free to change this locally. See the documentation of
BC> originating_ip_headers (perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf)
I've added-
originating_ip_headers X-Yahoo-Post-IP X-Apparently-From X-SenderIP
to local.cf
However I still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello John,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 7:48:57 PM, you wrote:
JH> X-Spam-Relays-External, not Untrusted.
Yes and it will always be the first external Received IP address,
X-Originating-IP: should net be in the chain of external IP addresses.
- --
Best
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:17:56 -0400
Bill Cole wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2019, at 12:52, Niamh Holding wrote:
>
> > Hello RW,
> >
> > Friday, June 7, 2019, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > R> This is the reason:
> > R>
> >>> X-Originating-IP: 162.208.32.167
> >
> >
> > R> Perhaps the rule should be m
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, Niamh Holding wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello John,
> >
> > Friday, June 7, 2019, 3:56:03 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > JH> If you're getting FPs on this, I suggest you review your
> > JH> internal hosts. It looks for reserved IP
On 7 Jun 2019, at 12:52, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello RW,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
R> This is the reason:
R>
X-Originating-IP: 162.208.32.167
R> Perhaps the rule should be modified to test for by=\S
It's certainly not a Received: header so should not be checked.
You ar
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello John,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 3:56:03 PM, you wrote:
JH> If you're getting FPs on this, I suggest you review your internal hosts.
JH> It looks for reserved IP ranges in external Received headers.
This?
* 3.3 FORGED_RELAY_MUA_TO_MX No description
Hello RW,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 5:21:01 PM, you wrote:
R> This is the reason:
R>
>> X-Originating-IP: 162.208.32.167
R> Perhaps the rule should be modified to test for by=\S
It's certainly not a Received: header so should not be checked.
--
Best regards,
Niamh
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:00:00 +0100
Niamh Holding wrote:
> Hello RW,
>
> Friday, June 7, 2019, 4:43:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> R> This provides the first section of X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted.
>
> And there is no other received header with that IP address, so where
> is the second entry coming from?
Hello RW,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 4:43:13 PM, you wrote:
R> This provides the first section of X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted.
And there is no other received header with that IP address, so where is
the second entry coming from?
Return-Path:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:30:58 +0100
Niamh Holding wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Friday, June 7, 2019, 3:56:03 PM, you wrote:
>
> JH> If you're getting FPs on this, I suggest you review your internal
> JH> hosts. It looks for reserved IP ranges in external Received
> JH> headers.
>
> This?
>
> * 3.
Hello John,
Friday, June 7, 2019, 3:56:03 PM, you wrote:
JH> If you're getting FPs on this, I suggest you review your internal hosts.
JH> It looks for reserved IP ranges in external Received headers.
This?
* 3.3 FORGED_RELAY_MUA_TO_MX No description available.
.
.
.
X-Spam-Relays-Untrusted:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, Niamh Holding wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Since 27/05/19 I've been getting loads of FPs caused by this rule
> > scoring over 3, earlier in May and before it was scoring 0.0
> >
> > Anyone know why the score has su
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, Niamh Holding wrote:
Hello
Since 27/05/19 I've been getting loads of FPs caused by this rule scoring
over 3, earlier in May and before it was scoring 0.0
Anyone know why the score has suddenly rocketed for A rule that doesn't
even have a description?
The standard answer:
Hello
Since 27/05/19 I've been getting loads of FPs caused by this rule scoring
over 3, earlier in May and before it was scoring 0.0
Anyone know why the score has suddenly rocketed for A rule that doesn't
even have a description?
--
Best regards,
Niamh mailto:ni...@f
14 matches
Mail list logo
