On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:
Does whitelist_auth work on From header, or Return-Path? Reason I ask:
I have two emails from “support .at. wasabi.com”. Due to their emails usually
triggering KAM rules I have (in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf):
## Whitelist Wasabi, subject to passing of auth
whitelist_auth supp...@wasabi.com
[snip..]
The other is not triggering whitelist_auth and is marked as spam due to the KAM
rule fails. It has:
Return-Path: <bounces+35259635-6e5a-simon=simonandkate....@mmemail.wasabi.com>
... <snip>
From: Wasabi <supp...@wasabi.com>
... <snip>
Reply-To: supp...@wasabi.com
Despite passing SPF and DKIM, not whitelisted:
X-Spam-Score: 20.212
X-Spam-Level: ********************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.212 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, DCC_REPUT_99_100=1.4, DKIM_INVALID=0.1,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KAM_BODY_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=0.001,
KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=1,
KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC=0.5, LR_DMARC_PASS=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
[snip]
Thanks.
Simon.
You say "passing SPF and DKIM" however in the SA rules report it clearly says:
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_INVALID=0.1
So eventho you think 'passed DKIM' SA clearly does NOT think it does. That
DKIM_INVALID will prevent the whitelist_auth from firing, thus you need to
investigate what's going wrong there.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center, 103 S Capitol St.
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
