You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2004/01/24 00:31:36 UTC

Re: Incorrectly identified BSP messages

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"John Hall" writes:
>I have seen a couple of pieces of spam that SpamAssassin has identified,
>but have matched the RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED rule. I've therefore reported
>them to bondedsender.com. However, they say that none of the mail hops
>are in their whitelist.
>
>Looking more closely at the SpamAssassin report, something odd is going
>on:
>
>-4.3 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED    RBL: Sender is in Bonded Sender Program
>                            (trusted relay)
>                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
>
>The rule is being triggered because the IP address is in
>dnsbl.sorbs.net, whereas the BSP dns list is at
>sa-trusted.bondedsender.org.
>
>I've seen this with both SA 2.60 and 2.63.

! bizarre.

Have you got a message this occurs with reproducably?  We would be
interested in a bug report if so at http://bugzilla.SpamAssassin.org/ .
It sounds a lot like, er, sunspots. ;)

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFAEa7XQTcbUG5Y7woRAiRVAKCQmLzDgNmX9UAlpScjr57xf0i1dgCghmqt
80bn+IHwGU0YdYkUZyZlYcc=
=H1AH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Re: Incorrectly identified BSP messages

Posted by John Hall <jo...@cambridgetechgroup.com>.
On 23 January 2004 23:32, Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> wrote:

> "John Hall" writes:
> >I have seen a couple of pieces of spam that SpamAssassin has
> >identified, but have matched the RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED rule. I've
> >therefore reported them to bondedsender.com. However, they say that
> >none of the mail hops are in their whitelist.

> ! bizarre.
>
> Have you got a message this occurs with reproducably?  We would be
> interested in a bug report if so at http://bugzilla.SpamAssassin.org/
> . It sounds a lot like, er, sunspots. ;)

Unfortunately it seems non-reproducable. The DNS scores in the original
message report were:

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
--
 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS          RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS
                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
-4.3 RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED    RBL: Sender is in Bonded Sender Program (trusted
relay)
                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
 0.7 RCVD_IN_DSBL           RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org
                            [<http://dsbl.org/listing?ip=4.46.142.76>]
 1.5 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
                 [Blocked - see
<http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?4.46.142.76>]
 2.6 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK      RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address
                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]


But running it manually through spamassassin now only gives:

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
--
 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS          RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS
                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
 0.7 RCVD_IN_DSBL           RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org
                            [<http://dsbl.org/listing?ip=4.46.142.76>]
 1.5 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
                 [Blocked - see
<http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?4.46.142.76>]
 2.6 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK      RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address
                            [4.46.142.76 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]

So the BSP score has mysteriously disappeared.

Regards,
John