You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2008/09/02 15:12:56 UTC
Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
Nicolas Letellier writes:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
> > the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
> >
> > There's also a bug already open on this.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5707
> >
> > We might need to convert that rule to a meta and ignore it when the MUA
> > is outlook 12.0 unless we can figure out that the outlook in question
> > has some weird hack that causes it, and normal outlook 12 doesn't cause
> > the problem.. Although I personally feel makers (and knowing users) of
> > broken tools should suffer, I don't think SpamAssassin is the best spot
> > to implement that. :-)
>
> Hello Matt,
>
> But today, I can't leave this option actived (or not patched). It's important for my business, and too many clients use Outlook 12.0 (I can't force them to use another mail client).
>
> For waiting, is it possible to disable the MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT check? And how?
To get it fixed quickly, the most important thing you could do is attach
multiple samples of messages from Outlook 12.0 which demo this behaviour,
with full headers and body, to that bug. Right now it appears we have
none, so no changes to rules can be developed.
--j.
Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:02 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:45:35 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > Anyway, I believe just disabling this rule won't help much. See my other
> > post with details about this.
>
> Thanks for the line (and others who told it too).
> Indeed, this line will not help me for the mail I've pasted. Just a
> little. But it's better than now, waiting a patch.
Other than proper Bayes training, which has been mentioned already, and
investigating what caused previous messages to score that high...
If you frequently get high scoring mail from some senders for whatever
weird reason, it might be worth looking into whitelist_from_rcvd.
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
Posted by Nicolas Letellier <ni...@nicoelro.net>.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:45:35 +0200
Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:23 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
>
> > No, I think put a "#" in a file is more quickly than give you full
> > mails and wait for a patch.
> > Could you explain me how disable this check? It's important to disable
> > MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT.
>
> Just as has been mentioned by others already, set the rule's score to 0.
> Do NOT comment out the rule in the stock (update) cf files. That will
> break on your next sa-update run.
>
> Anyway, I believe just disabling this rule won't help much. See my other
> post with details about this.
Thanks for the line (and others who told it too).
Indeed, this line will not help me for the mail I've pasted. Just a little. But it's better than now, waiting a patch.
Regards,
--
-Nicolas.
Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:23 +0200, Nicolas Letellier wrote:
> No, I think put a "#" in a file is more quickly than give you full
> mails and wait for a patch.
> Could you explain me how disable this check? It's important to disable
> MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT.
Just as has been mentioned by others already, set the rule's score to 0.
Do NOT comment out the rule in the stock (update) cf files. That will
break on your next sa-update run.
Anyway, I believe just disabling this rule won't help much. See my other
post with details about this.
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: problem with MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT
Posted by Nicolas Letellier <ni...@nicoelro.net>.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:12:56 +0100
jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) wrote:
>
> Nicolas Letellier writes:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:47:18 -0400
> > Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Well, it's obvious what the problem is. There's clearly two @ signs in
> > > the message-id, which is illegal, but it's what Microsoft is doing anyway.
> > >
> > > There's also a bug already open on this.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5707
> > >
> > > We might need to convert that rule to a meta and ignore it when the MUA
> > > is outlook 12.0 unless we can figure out that the outlook in question
> > > has some weird hack that causes it, and normal outlook 12 doesn't cause
> > > the problem.. Although I personally feel makers (and knowing users) of
> > > broken tools should suffer, I don't think SpamAssassin is the best spot
> > > to implement that. :-)
> >
> > Hello Matt,
> >
> > But today, I can't leave this option actived (or not patched). It's important for my business, and too many clients use Outlook 12.0 (I can't force them to use another mail client).
> >
> > For waiting, is it possible to disable the MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT check? And how?
>
> To get it fixed quickly, the most important thing you could do is attach
> multiple samples of messages from Outlook 12.0 which demo this behaviour,
> with full headers and body, to that bug. Right now it appears we have
> none, so no changes to rules can be developed.
>
> --j.
No, I think put a "#" in a file is more quickly than give you full mails and wait for a patch.
Could you explain me how disable this check? It's important to disable MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT.
I can send you mails for debug this problem if you want. But not now, because I must ask them to my users.
Thanks !
--
-Nicolas.