You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Jason Parsons <jp...@saffron.net> on 2006/03/13 23:47:14 UTC
URIDNSBL.pm invalid bitwise or?
I'm using an internal URIBL, configured like so:
urirhssub SAFF_EXAMPLE rbl.example.com. A 127.0.0.8
body SAFF_EXAMPLE eval:check_uridnsbl('SAFF_EXAMPLE')
describe SAFF_EXAMPLE Example RBL hit 8
Running with the above configuration causes spamd to log:
warn: Argument "127.0.0.8" isn't numeric in bitwise or (|) at /usr/
lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm line
614, <GEN10> line 39.
My configuration appears legal based on the docs:
urirhssub NAME_OF_RULE rhsbl_zone lookuptype subtest
[ ... ]
subtest is the sub-test to run against the returned data. The sub-
test may either be an IPv4 dotted address for RHSBLs that return
multiple A records, a non-negative decimal number to specify a
bitmask for RHSBLs that return a single A record containing a bitmask
of results, or (if none of the preceding options seem to fit) a
regular expression.
However, URIDNSBL.pm, on line 614, does this:
$uridnsbl_subs_bits |= $_ for keys %{$uridnsbl_subs};
If I'm reading the code correctly, this bitwise or will break when
the subtest is an IP address or a regular expression.
The code in question was introduced here:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?
id=2611&action=view
... in response to bug ID 3997.
Thoughts?
Thank you.
- Jason Parsons
Re: URIDNSBL.pm invalid bitwise or?
Posted by Jason Parsons <jp...@saffron.net>.
>> urirhssub SAFF_EXAMPLE rbl.example.com. A 127.0.0.8
>
> urihssub expects just 8, not 127.0.0.8
Sorry for the delay in responding. Your description, while it seems
to match the current code, doesn't match the documentation:
> subtest is the sub-test to run against the returned data. The sub-
> test may either be an IPv4 dotted address for RHSBLs that return
> multiple A records, a non-negative decimal number to specify a
> bitmask for RHSBLs that return a single A record containing a
> bitmask of results, or (if none of the preceding options seem to
> fit) a regular expression.
The bitmask test works, but the regex test and exact-match test don't
work due to the bitwise or at Plugin/URIDNSBL.pm line 614. The code
for exact-matches and regex-matches is there:
if ($subtest eq $rdatastr) {
[ ... ]
# bitmask
elsif ($subtest =~ /^\d+$/) {
[ ... ]
# regular expression
else {
if ($rdatastr =~ /${subtest}/) {
... but that code is broken by the assumption that only a bitmask is
valid.
If it's true that only a bitmask should be valid, then perhaps the
documentation/code should be updated? On the other hand, it appears
that the test that is causing regex and exact-match to fail was a
workaround for a bug that has been resolved:
# skip any A record that isn't on 127/8 if we're not looking for
# any bits in the first octet, this is a workaround for bug 3997
if ($rr->type eq 'A' && $rr->rdatastr !~ /^127\./ &&
!($uridnsbl_subs_bits & 0xff000000))
... so perhaps this workaround can be removed? For what it's worth,
if this workaround is to remain, I might suggest wrapping the bitwise
or to make it act only on a decimal number:
- $uridnsbl_subs_bits |= $_ for keys %{$uridnsbl_subs};
+ foreach my $sub_key (keys %{$uridnsbl_subs}) {
+ $uridnsbl_subs_bits |= $sub_key if ($sub_key =~ /^\d+$/);
+ }
+
Thanks.
- Jason Parsons
Re: URIDNSBL.pm invalid bitwise or?
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>.
Jason Parsons wrote:
>
> I'm using an internal URIBL, configured like so:
>
> urirhssub SAFF_EXAMPLE rbl.example.com. A 127.0.0.8
> body SAFF_EXAMPLE eval:check_uridnsbl('SAFF_EXAMPLE')
> describe SAFF_EXAMPLE Example RBL hit 8
>
> Running with the above configuration causes spamd to log:
urihssub expects just 8, not 127.0.0.8
Such as the examples in the config files:
urirhssub URIBL_PH_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 8
body URIBL_PH_SURBL eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_PH_SURBL')
describe URIBL_PH_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the PH SURBL blocklist
tflags URIBL_PH_SURBL net