Hello,
the __HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXXXX rule catches mail sent from windows live mail
(and outlook express, which, while obsolete, seems to be still used often)
That further causes hitting HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_DIRECT and
HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_NORDNS in cases where client uses the mail client on
local network, without SMTP authentication, and without DNS (which may be
quite common in some organizations).
as a workaround, I recommend to add && !ALL_TRUSTED to
HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_DIRECT and HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_NORDNS rules.
an example:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=9.154 required=5.6 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1,
DOS_OE_TO_MX=3.086, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1=0.001,
HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_DIRECT=1.999, HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_NORDNS=3.5,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIMEOLE_DIRECT_TO_MX=0.293, RDNS_NONE=1.274]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
I have filled out bug 7607, it got rejected immediately:
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7607
while I agree that fixing RDNS will help, internal networks DNS is not
always easy, especially when maintained by different people and when
internal DNS is in LAn, not in DMZ.
note that this problem has been reported on spamassassin-users a month ago:
http://spamassassin.1065346.n5.nabble.com/Problem-with-new-rules-td152105.html
So, to avoid discussions on bugzilla, I prefer asking here:
Is it really a problem to add && !ALL_TRUSTED to HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_DIRECT
and HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_NORDNS ?
(maybe even HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_001C and HDR_ORDER_FTSDMCXX_BAT, if their
score will be more than zero)
--
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.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
