spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX superflous __DOS_RELAYED_EXT
Date Sat, 11 May 2019 14:20:09 GMT
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:13:43 +0100
RW wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:44:54 +0200
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > when looking at __DOS_DIRECT_TO_MX I have noticed that it consists
> > of one superflous rule:  
> ...
> > I believe hitting __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY implies not hitting
> > __DOS_RELAYED_EXT, because:
> > 
> > header __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY   X-Spam-Relays-External
> > =~ /^\[ [^\]]+ \]$/ header __DOS_RELAYED_EXT        ALL-EXTERNAL
> > =~ /(?:^|\n)[Rr][eE][cC][eE][iI][vV][eE][dD]:\s.+\n[Rr][eE][cC][eE][iI][vV][eE][dD]:\s/s
> > 
> > looking at the docs, __DOS_RELAYED_EXT only matches when there are
> > multiple Received: headers in external relays, however such mail
> > would have multiple relays in X-Spam-Relays-External and thus it
> > could not match __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY  
> 
> I noticed this myself. IIRC I didn't mention it because it's harmless
> and it's difficult to establish that there aren't rare corner cases
> where it's needed.

They are both needed. 

__DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY would miss an upstream relay if it's unparsable,
whereas __DOS_RELAYED_EXT is looking for a deep received header.

!__DOS_RELAYED_EXT alone would FP in the cases where there are no
received headers in ALL-EXTERNAL, whereas  __DOS_SINGLE_EXT_RELAY
requires a single entry in Relays-External.


Mime
View raw message