1

Some mails with high score passes to users mailboxes even if many of the same spam messages gets filtered out correctly to server's spambox. Here is one example: Mail correctly filtered as spam

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:08:33 +0300 From: Erich Gibbs
<[email protected]> To: **** <*****@****.**> Subject: please
sign

[-- Attachment #1 --] [-- Type: multipart/related, Encoding: 7bit,
Size: 16K --]

[-- Attachment #1 --] [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 8bit, Size: 0.1K
  --]

Dear ****

Please sign the receipt attached for the arrival of new office
facilities.


Best regards, Erich Gibbs


[-- Attachment #2: fe12f845f8ff.zip --] [-- Type: application/zip,
Encoding: base64, Size: 15K --]

[-- application/zip is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]


[-- Attachment #2: SpamAssassinReport.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain,
Encoding: 7bit, Size: 1.0K --]

Spam detection software, running on the system "****.****.**", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future
email.  If you have any questions, see the administrator of that
system for details.

Content preview:  Dear **** Please sign the receipt attached for the
arrival    of new office facilities. Best regards, Erich Gibbs [...]

Content analysis details:   (5.1 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.9 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP  Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split
                            IP)
 0.2 CK_HELO_GENERIC        Relay used name indicative of a Dynamic Pool or
                            Generic rPTR
 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP            Message was received from an IP address
 0.7 SPF_NEUTRAL            SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral)
 1.3 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS

Here is similar message which reached my inbox

Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from
108.subnet110-136-45.speedy.telkom.net.id (108.subnet110-136-45.speedy.telkom.net.id [110.136.45.108] (may be
forged))    by  (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u74CAuvv038162
    for <****@****.**>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:11:07 +0200 Received: from
root by telkom.net.id with local (Exim 4.80)    (envelope-from
<[email protected]>)     id
kcxAKb-MGbTTg-NC    for ****@****.**; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 19:10:52 +0700
To: "*****" <****@****.**> Subject: please sign Date: Thu, 04 Aug
2016 19:10:52 +0700 From: "Earlene Blankenship"
<[email protected]> Message-ID:
<[email protected]> X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version:
1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related;    type="text/html";   boundary="b1_560b0ac54766d9148a54052f9a46e5ef" X-SPF-Scan-By: smf-spf
v2.0.2 - http://smfs.sf.net/ Received-SPF: None (****.****.**: domain
of [email protected]  does not designate permitted
sender hosts)   receiver=****.****.**; client-ip=110.136.45.108;
    envelope-from=<[email protected]>;
helo=108.subnet110-136-45.speedy.telkom.net.id; X-Virus-Scanned:
clamav-milter 0.99.2 at ****.****.** X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 62.168.116.66

--b1_560b0ac54766d9148a54052f9a46e5ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear ****

Please sign the receipt attached for the arrival of new office
facilities.


Best regards, Earlene Blankenship


 1_560b0ac54766d9148a54052f9a46e5ef Content-Type: application/zip; name="d8bc18159378.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="d8bc18159378.zip"

When I check the score of the same message with spamc, the score is high. I don't know why it is not flagged correctly before delivery.

# spamc -R <'1470312683.38275_0.****.****.**:2,Sa'
8.3/5.0 Spam detection software, running on the system "****.****.**", has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar
future email.  If you have any questions, see the administrator of
that system for details.

Content preview:  Dear servis Please sign the receipt attached for the
arrival    of new office facilities. Best regards, Earlene Blankenship
[...] 

Content analysis details:   (8.3 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.9 HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP  Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (Split
                            IP)
 0.0 CK_HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname
                            (Split IP)
 2.7 RCVD_IN_PSBL           RBL: Received via a relay in PSBL
                            [110.136.45.108 listed in psbl.surriel.com]
 3.6 RCVD_IN_PBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
                            [110.136.45.108 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
-1.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD        Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC           Delivered to internal network by host with
                            dynamic-looking rDNS

#

Any Ideas what may be the cause? Thank you.

1 Answer 1

2

I have found the cause. In mimedefang-filter was defined that only messages smaller than 100kB gets processed by spamassassin. I have raised the bar to 300kB and the problem is solved.

if ($Features{"SpamAssassin"}) {
        if (-s "./INPUTMSG" < 300*1024) {
...

I hope this helps someone.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .