You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> on 2014/03/06 11:49:56 UTC
Re: DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q only hits with ssl-received mail
>On 19.02.14 17:32, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>some time ago I was wondering if sendmail changes the Date: header.
>>The reason was that I've been receiving mail that fired DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q
>>when being received at SMTP level, but not later.
>>
>>Now I found out that when the same mail is received from the same mail
>>server, the thing that makes difference is, if it's received over TLS
>>connection.
On 21.02.14 15:35, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>Also, it seems I have the workaround:
>
>The milter macro 'b' seems to work properly when sendmail macro "b" is sent
>in confMILTER_MACROS_ENVFROM instead of confMILTER_MACROS_ENVRCPT as
>spamass-milter recommends.
and now I must tell that the workaround does not work.
Unfortunately I still get DATE_IN_* issues for mail received via SMTP/SSL
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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.
WinError #99999: Out of error messages.
Re: DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q only hits with ssl-received mail
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
>On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 11:49 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> and now I must tell that the workaround does not work.
>>
>> Unfortunately I still get DATE_IN_* issues for mail received via SMTP/SSL
On 06.03.14 11:15, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>Is there any chance that this is due to a man-in-the-middle listener or
>a DMZ firewall with a mis-set date?
no, all that stuff runs on my server. It seems that spamass-milter is pushing
sendmail startup date instead of current date on place of a "b" macro.
...I've been sniffing on localhost spamd port to find this out.
I am playing with sendmail.cf to see if I can do anything with this.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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.
WinError #98652: Operation completed successfully.
Re: DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q only hits with ssl-received mail
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 11:49 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >On 19.02.14 17:32, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >>some time ago I was wondering if sendmail changes the Date: header.
> >>The reason was that I've been receiving mail that fired DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q
> >>when being received at SMTP level, but not later.
> >>
> >>Now I found out that when the same mail is received from the same mail
> >>server, the thing that makes difference is, if it's received over TLS
> >>connection.
>
> On 21.02.14 15:35, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >Also, it seems I have the workaround:
> >
> >The milter macro 'b' seems to work properly when sendmail macro "b" is sent
> >in confMILTER_MACROS_ENVFROM instead of confMILTER_MACROS_ENVRCPT as
> >spamass-milter recommends.
>
> and now I must tell that the workaround does not work.
>
> Unfortunately I still get DATE_IN_* issues for mail received via SMTP/SSL
>
Is there any chance that this is due to a man-in-the-middle listener or
a DMZ firewall with a mis-set date?
Martin