Bret,
Bret Miller wrote:
>
> Or perhaps I should just open a bug ticket to fix SA's "not understanding"
> problem...
>
(Also posted to CGP mailing list)
If you are receiving false-positives with CGP and the SpamAssassin 3.2.x
RDNS_NONE test ...
If SpamAssassin 3.1.x cannot identify RDNS da
> > I'm trying to get received headers to parse correctly
> because the ones from
> > CommuniGate Pro don't always. And, since I'm already
> modifying the headers
> > in my connector due to the MTA not being able to do RDNS
> without rejecting
> > based on it, I'm not aware that certain types of
Bret,
> I'm trying to get received headers to parse correctly because the ones from
> CommuniGate Pro don't always. And, since I'm already modifying the headers
> in my connector due to the MTA not being able to do RDNS without rejecting
> based on it, I'm not aware that certain types of headers d
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Bret Miller wrote:
Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2])
by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
...
Meaning that there was no RDNS for 206.74.184.2 and when it said helo, it
said "HELO [206.74.184.2]". However, SA is not parsing it that
> Bret Miller wrote:
> > Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2])
> > by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
> > ...
> > Meaning that there was no RDNS for 206.74.184.2 and when it said helo, it
> > said "HELO [206.74.184.2]". However, SA is not parsing it that way. So, can
>
Bret Miller wrote:
Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2])
by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
...
Meaning that there was no RDNS for 206.74.184.2
Actually, CommuniGate sometimes does that even when RDNS _is_ available.
For example:
Received: from [128.114.12
Bret Miller wrote:
> Received: from [206.74.184.2] (HELO [206.74.184.2])
>by mail.wcg.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11)
> ...
> Meaning that there was no RDNS for 206.74.184.2 and when it said helo, it
> said "HELO [206.74.184.2]". However, SA is not parsing it that way. So, can
> anyone te
