You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Julian Yap <ju...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/06 02:03:26 UTC

ALL_TRUSTED rule no longer working

Previously I was running SpamAssassin-3.1.8_1 on FreeBSD.

I recently upgraded to 3.2.5_4.

It's seems now, I never get any hits on the rule ALL_TRUSTED.

Previously it seemed like SA was doing some kind of dynamic evaluation which
was working well.

- Julian

Re: ALL_TRUSTED rule no longer working

Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
On 1/6/2010 3:43 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Matt Kettler <mkettler_sa@verizon.net
> <ma...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 1/5/2010 8:03 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>>     Previously I was running SpamAssassin-3.1.8_1 on FreeBSD.
>>
>>     I recently upgraded to 3.2.5_4.
>>
>>     It's seems now, I never get any hits on the rule ALL_TRUSTED.
>>
>>     Previously it seemed like SA was doing some kind of dynamic
>>     evaluation which was working well.
>>
>>     - Julian
>>
>     is NO_RELAYS or UNPARSEABLE_RELAY also hitting?
>
>     In older versions of SA, ALL_TRUSTED was really implemented as "no
>     untrusted", so it would fire off if there were no relays, or no
>     parseable ones. This caused problems with ALL_TRUSTED matching
>     spam when people ran SA on servers with malformed headers.
>
>     Later we changed it to fire if there is:
>         -at least one trusted relay
>         -no untrusted relays
>         -no unparseable relays.
>
>     Which might be the cause of your problem.
>
>
> NO_RELAYS gets no hits but UNPARSEABLE_RELAY is working.
>
> Should I be getting some hits on NO_RELAYS?
>
> Thanks for the further explanation.
>
> - Julian
>
Neither of these rules should *EVER* fire. They both indicate error
conditions.

Re: ALL_TRUSTED rule no longer working

Posted by Julian Yap <ju...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>wrote:

>  On 1/5/2010 8:03 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
>
> Previously I was running SpamAssassin-3.1.8_1 on FreeBSD.
>
> I recently upgraded to 3.2.5_4.
>
> It's seems now, I never get any hits on the rule ALL_TRUSTED.
>
> Previously it seemed like SA was doing some kind of dynamic evaluation
> which was working well.
>
> - Julian
>
>  is NO_RELAYS or UNPARSEABLE_RELAY also hitting?
>
> In older versions of SA, ALL_TRUSTED was really implemented as "no
> untrusted", so it would fire off if there were no relays, or no parseable
> ones. This caused problems with ALL_TRUSTED matching spam when people ran SA
> on servers with malformed headers.
>
> Later we changed it to fire if there is:
>     -at least one trusted relay
>     -no untrusted relays
>     -no unparseable relays.
>
> Which might be the cause of your problem.
>

NO_RELAYS gets no hits but UNPARSEABLE_RELAY is working.

Should I be getting some hits on NO_RELAYS?

Thanks for the further explanation.

- Julian

Re: ALL_TRUSTED rule no longer working

Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
On 1/5/2010 8:03 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
> Previously I was running SpamAssassin-3.1.8_1 on FreeBSD.
>
> I recently upgraded to 3.2.5_4.
>
> It's seems now, I never get any hits on the rule ALL_TRUSTED.
>
> Previously it seemed like SA was doing some kind of dynamic evaluation
> which was working well.
>
> - Julian
>
is NO_RELAYS or UNPARSEABLE_RELAY also hitting?

In older versions of SA, ALL_TRUSTED was really implemented as "no
untrusted", so it would fire off if there were no relays, or no
parseable ones. This caused problems with ALL_TRUSTED matching spam when
people ran SA on servers with malformed headers.

Later we changed it to fire if there is:
    -at least one trusted relay
    -no untrusted relays
    -no unparseable relays.

Which might be the cause of your problem.