You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2016/11/06 17:23:29 UTC
[Bug 7368] New: TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7368
Bug ID: 7368
Summary: TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: Rules
Assignee: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
Reporter: spamassassin999@baobab.fi
Target Milestone: Undefined
Based on the wiki description I think this is supposed to trigger from message
content only (ratio of spaces in each paragraph). However, sending the exact
same message from 2 different email providers results in one getting flagged
with TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP:
SpamAssassin Score: 2.971
Message is NOT marked as spam
Points breakdown:
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
valid
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
0.0 TVD_SPACE_RATIO No description available.
0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with
dynamic-looking rDNS
2.5 TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP Space ratio
The exact same email sent from a different email provider does not get this
flag. If there is anything I can do in configuring my email server better, I
would love to know. Btw, the DKIM flags are erroneous as well. 2 different DKIM
validators say that emails sent from my server have valid DKIM signatures.
If anyone wants to investigate further, here are the full results from
dkimvalidator.com:
Received: from mail.baobab.fi
(ec2-35-156-24-116.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com [35.156.24.116])
by relay-6.us-west-2.relay-prod (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7957460362
for <os...@dkimvalidator.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:15:20 +0000
(UTC)
Received: from mail.baobab.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.baobab.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E18E82F60
for <os...@dkimvalidator.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:15:19 +0000
(UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.baobab.fi (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=baobab.fi
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=baobab.fi; h=
user-agent:message-id:subject:subject:to:from:from:date:date
:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type
:mime-version; s=dkim; t=1478452519; x=1479316520; bh=oQM/dD2FyV
J34ySUW/H5Bj69XVTWj/Gx0UyMt/65KWU=; b=mwoiBeO9xl7N+pfayYSXAnwLrW
Wymao3WTfxLWN5ol4cR228hoO+VduCO8L8YFnrh1n4Ar40WzbdFrTMZxKDnzgEgL
IViBLgtk6BNrmVJG5CkJ9L9xubwxKvzyeaJ7YxBEsn+lRNf/82gwdEmyNYGj757l
Gtl+EtUOtnxw3VtWA=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.baobab.fi
Received: from mail.baobab.fi ([127.0.0.1])
by mail.baobab.fi (mail.baobab.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port
10026)
with ESMTP id MGD91PDGZcxi for <os...@dkimvalidator.com>;
Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:15:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from _ (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.baobab.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E2AD82F2B
for <os...@dkimvalidator.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 17:15:19 +0000
(UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 19:15:19 +0200
From: spam@baobab.fi
To: osTdj1oVf2Qchz@dkimvalidator.com
Subject: fdfd
Message-ID: <d9...@baobab.fi>
X-Sender: spam@baobab.fi
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail
sdffsddsfsdf
(end of message)
DKIM Information:
DKIM Signature
Message contains this DKIM Signature:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=baobab.fi; h=
user-agent:message-id:subject:subject:to:from:from:date:date
:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type
:mime-version; s=dkim; t=1478452519; x=1479316520; bh=oQM/dD2FyV
J34ySUW/H5Bj69XVTWj/Gx0UyMt/65KWU=; b=mwoiBeO9xl7N+pfayYSXAnwLrW
Wymao3WTfxLWN5ol4cR228hoO+VduCO8L8YFnrh1n4Ar40WzbdFrTMZxKDnzgEgL
IViBLgtk6BNrmVJG5CkJ9L9xubwxKvzyeaJ7YxBEsn+lRNf/82gwdEmyNYGj757l
Gtl+EtUOtnxw3VtWA=
Signature Information:
v= Version: 1
a= Algorithm: rsa-sha256
c= Method: relaxed/simple
d= Domain: baobab.fi
s= Selector: dkim
q= Protocol:
bh= oQM/dD2FyV
J34ySUW/H5Bj69XVTWj/Gx0UyMt/65KWU=
h= Signed Headers:
user-agent:message-id:subject:subject:to:from:from:date:date
:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type
:mime-version
b= Data: mwoiBeO9xl7N+pfayYSXAnwLrW
Wymao3WTfxLWN5ol4cR228hoO+VduCO8L8YFnrh1n4Ar40WzbdFrTMZxKDnzgEgL
IViBLgtk6BNrmVJG5CkJ9L9xubwxKvzyeaJ7YxBEsn+lRNf/82gwdEmyNYGj757l
Gtl+EtUOtnxw3VtWA=
Public Key DNS Lookup
Building DNS Query for dkim._domainkey.baobab.fi
Retrieved this publickey from DNS: v=DKIM1;
p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCv8GbUJMMOe7sJ6itVfUsEJIcGaB2HTxWUXuo9pLbfYCWIxDPYnxOMHCM9gkIBZlXd6oA/Q8liFyJqkPPfiU83uOzt90C1EkJ6wy/YgwqmgoypQy5VZhaJDwPzsEyWPLzCUSKX3kc3QvRoR/BwAVKs0WtfZnYkbPNN/XC7I53O+QIDAQAB
Validating Signature
result = pass
Details: (empty)
SPF Information:
Using this information that I obtained from the headers
Helo Address = mail.baobab.fi
From Address = spam@baobab.fi
From IP = 35.156.24.116
SPF Record Lookup
Looking up TXT SPF record for baobab.fi
Found the following namesevers for baobab.fi: dns1.louhi.net dns2.louhi.net
dns3.louhi.fi
Retrieved this SPF Record: zone updated 20161106 (TTL = 13068)
using authoritative server (dns1.louhi.net) directly for SPF Check
Result: pass (Mechanism 'mx' matched)
Result code: pass
Local Explanation: baobab.fi: 35.156.24.116 is authorized to use
'spam@baobab.fi' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'mx' matched)
spf_header = Received-SPF: pass (baobab.fi: 35.156.24.116 is authorized to use
'spam@baobab.fi' in 'mfrom' identity (mechanism 'mx' matched))
receiver=ip-172-31-3-128.us-west-1.compute.internal; identity=mailfrom;
envelope-from="spam@baobab.fi"; helo=mail.baobab.fi; client-ip=35.156.24.116
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7368] TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7368
Atte Juvonen <sp...@baobab.fi> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |spamassassin999@baobab.fi
--- Comment #3 from Atte Juvonen <sp...@baobab.fi> ---
(In reply to John Hardin from comment #1)
> Please discuss this in the users mailing list.
>
> The "minfp" part means the base TVD_SPACE_RATIO rule has had some
> FP-avoidance tweaks added, and those may be network- or MTA-specific and
> thus explain the differences you're seeing.
>
Do you have any ideas how I could configure my MTA so that emails would not be
classified as spam by SpamAssassin?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7368] TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7368
--- Comment #2 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to John Hardin from comment #1)
> I'm also surprised it's scoring that high, as the masscheck score limit is
> set to 2.500
...whoops, that was the overall score. Never mind... :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7368] TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7368
John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC| |jhardin@impsec.org
--- Comment #1 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
Please discuss this in the users mailing list.
The "minfp" part means the base TVD_SPACE_RATIO rule has had some FP-avoidance
tweaks added, and those may be network- or MTA-specific and thus explain the
differences you're seeing.
I'm also surprised it's scoring that high, as the masscheck score limit is set
to 2.500
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 7368] TVD_SPACE_RATIO_MINFP
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7368
--- Comment #4 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> ---
(In reply to Atte Juvonen from comment #3)
> Do you have any ideas how I could configure my MTA so that emails would not
> be classified as spam by SpamAssassin?
Discuss that on the users mailing list, please.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.