You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Chris <cp...@earthlink.net> on 2005/11/01 02:06:33 UTC

Re: DK_SIGNED from yahoo

On Monday 31 October 2005 12:04 pm, Raul Dias wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I upgraded to 3.1.0 (from 3.0.4) and enabled the Domainkeys plugin.
> I patched it with the patch in the bugzilla #4623
> (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3210) as I am
> using Mail::DomainKeys 0.80.
>
> Testing against mail from groups.yahoo.com, I get DK_SIGNED, but not
> DK_VERIFIED as I was expecting (even more as yahoo created domain keys).
>
> Can anyone enlight me?
> Is this what you are getting too?
> Are you getting DK_VERIFIED?
> Why?
>
> Here is a sample message that got DK_SIGNED only:
>
Here are the headers of a message I sent myself from my yahoo account, all 
the domain key tests seem to be there or did I misunderstand your problem?

X-Spam-Virus: No
 X-Spam-Seen: Tokens 71
 X-Spam-New: Tokens 94
 X-Spam-Remote: Host localhost.localdomain
 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on 
        cpollock.localdomain
 X-Spam-Hammy: Tokens 26
 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 
tests=BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,
        DK_POLICY_TESTING,DK_SIGNED,DK_VERIFIED,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,
        PYZOR_CHECK autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0
 X-Spam-Spammy: Tokens 1
 X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
 X-Spam-Token: Summary Tokens: new, 23; hammy, 26; neutral, 44; spammy, 1.
 X-Spam-DCC: dcc.uncw.edu cpollock.localdomain 1201; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
 X-Spam-Untrusted: Relays [ ip=206.190.38.139 rdns=web51008.mail.yahoo.com 
        helo=web51008.mail.yahoo.com by=mx-pigeons.atl.sa.earthlink.net 
        ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=1ewJEW2sl3Nl34g0 auth= ] 
[ ip=69.68.226.102 
        rdns= helo= by=web51008.mail.yahoo.com ident= envfrom= intl=0 id= 
        auth= ]
 X-Spam-Level: *
 X-Spam-RBL: Results <dns:yahoo.com.fulldom.rfc-ignorant.org> [127.0.0.4]
        <dns:yahoo.com> [66.94.234.13, 216.109.112.135]
        <dns:yahoo.com?type=MX> [1 mx1.mail.yahoo.com., 1 
mx2.mail.yahoo.com., 1 mx3.mail.yahoo.com., 5 mx4.mail.yahoo.com.]
 Status: U
 Return-Path: <ch...@yahoo.com>
 Received: from pop.earthlink.net [209.86.93.201]
        by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.5)
        for cpollock@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:06:00 
-0600 (CST)
 Received: from web51008.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.139])
        by mx-pigeons.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP 
id 1ewJEW2sl3Nl34g0
        for <cp...@earthlink.net>; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:05:50 -0500 (EST)
 Received: (qmail 44317 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Nov 2005 00:05:49 -0000
 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;

-- 
Chris
Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org
19:01:05 up 24 days, 23:23, 1 user, load average: 0.48, 0.36, 0.30
Mandriva Linux 10.1 Official, kernel 2.6.8.1-12mdk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Love at first sight is one of the greatest labor-saving devices the
world has ever seen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: DK_SIGNED from yahoo

Posted by Raul Dias <ra...@dias.com.br>.
Hi,

On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 19:06 -0600, Chris wrote:
> Here are the headers of a message I sent myself from my yahoo account, all 
> the domain key tests seem to be there or did I misunderstand your problem?
[...]
>  X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 
> tests=BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,
>         DK_POLICY_TESTING,DK_SIGNED,DK_VERIFIED,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,
>         PYZOR_CHECK autolearn=disabled version=3.1.0

ok, I send me a mail from yahoo mail.
I got DK_SIGNED and DK_VERIFIED.  But no DK_POLICY_* .

OTOH, the message in the attachment is a real message from a yahoo
groups.
>>From Yahoo Groups all I get is DK_SIGNED.
Can you run it in your sa? [spamassassin|spamc] < message  

What version of Mail::DomainKeys do you have?

Maybe even at Yahoo, domainkeys is not 100% installed across the SMTP
servers (although, I would expected it to be).

Regards, 
Raul Dias