Jeremy, Noel, > I'm using SpamAssassin 3.2.5, and the "FreeMail.pm" plugin v2.001 from > http://sa.hege.li, along with the rules from the 20_freemail.cf file at the > same location. > > My first question is why does (mr.anthonywalter2010[at]gmail.com) appear > twice within the FREEMAIL_FROM entry inside the X-Spam-Report header? Is it > there twice because this address was used for both the Return-Path and the > From headers? In other words, should I expect the FREEMAIL_FROM entry to > list any freemail address which is used as the envelope sender, as well as > any freemail address used in the From header of the message? I had assumed > the FREEMAIL_FROM rule only looked at the From header but maybe that's > incorrect. > > My second question is regarding the reference to > (financediamond[at]gmail.com) in the FREEMAIL_FROM results. That email > address does not appear anywhere in the entire message! Not in any of the > headers, nor in any part of the body. I've opened up the raw email file from > my mail server and searched the entire thing in a plain text editor, and > there is no reference anywhere to 'financediamond' at all. So why is the > FREEMAIL_FROM rule referring to that address? Is it a bug maybe? Could it > perhaps be crossing wires with another email which my SpamAssassin was > scanning at the same time, or something like that?? > > I am seeing this occasionally myself, including just now, except with > 3.3.1 ( hence my search of the mailbox and found this, but only this > post) somehow its mixing with addresses from separate emails altogether, > this is postfix and SA is called from amavisd-new > Was any suggestions given?
> I didn't receive any suggestions. I had hoped that when I would eventually > upgrade to 3.3.x (haven't done that yet), that the problem would go away. > So I'm sad to hear that it still exists. It's a bug in the FreeMail.pm plugin. It forgets to reset the rule description text with every message, to the addresses listed in a rule description just accumulate from one message to the next. I think this only affects text in a report, the rules probably hit correctly. Mark
