On Friday 14 September 2007 14:45, Marcin Krol wrote:
> I've had such a case today:
> From : spbs xxx@???>
> To : zzz@???>
> X-Spam-Report:
> * -0.0 HELO_EQ_DE HELO_EQ_DE
> * 0.0 DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME Domain Keys: policy says domain signs
> some mails
> * 0.1 HTML_90_100 BODY: Message is 90% to 100% HTML
> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
> * 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
> * [score: 0.5123]
> * 0.2 HTML_TITLE_EMPTY BODY: HTML title contains no text
> * 1.6 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in
> bl.spamcop.net
> * [Blocked - see
> <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?213.158.196.99>]
> * 3.2 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Exploits Block List
> * [<http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=213.158.196.99>]
As the description says, SpamAssassin thinks that the mail was "Received _via_
a relay" found in two blacklists, i.e. directly from 213.158.196.99.
> The user in question is not a spammer, she sent mail from 213.158.196.99
> (smtp client) via clean MX hosted by us (mail.spbs.pl), and yet the mail
> was rejected bc the today she got dynamic IP that happens to have been
> blocked by Spamcop in the past week.
If the above is the ruling of the remote SA, then it seems that the remote
system failed to add a correct Received header line to the mail before
passing it to SA.
- --
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@???
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans
