> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@infradead.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:15 PM
> To: Dave Evans
> Cc: exim-users@???; Raymond Jette
> Subject: Re: [exim] Issues with greylisting
>
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 12:03 +1300, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Exim _will_ add a Message-Id: header under certain
> circumstances, but
> > I don't believe it does so this early -- so $h_message-id
> should still
> > be empty at the time we're testing it.
>
> Having looked at Raymond's logs, it seems that you're right.
> The Message-Id is being added by Exim locally and thus the
> hash is coming out differently. You can tell from the
> rejection message. One says:
>
> Greylisted <<E1NXFbn-0005gi-Dh@???>> from
> <rjette@???> for offences: We greylist all mail
>
> And the other says:
>
> Greylisted <<E1NXFXF-0005gC-S9@???>> from
> <rjette@???> for offences: We greylist all mail,
>
>
> On my own systems, this doesn't happen. I get:
>
> 2010-01-19 23:09:47 +0000 1NXNCH-0007Ao-12 H=(me)
> [131.203.100.9] F=<david.woodhouse@???> temporarily
> rejected after DATA:
> Greylisted <> from <david.woodhouse@???> for offences:
> Sending host 131.203.100.9 lacks correct reverse DNS or CSA
> for HELO 'me',Message has 4.9 SpamAssassin points,Message has
> no Message-Id:
> header, which RFC5322 says it SHOULD,
I have setup my system so greylisting happens before SpamAssassin. It is
setup to greylist all mail. If you want I can send you a copy of my
acl_check_data.
> Note the empty Message-Id.
>
> So what's different in Raymond's setup such that
> $h_message-id is actually set when we evaluate it? What
> version of Exim is this?
>
I am running Exim version 4.69.
> --
> dwmw2
>
>
>
>
