0

I'm mostly a happy admin of spamassassin (3.4.0-6) + exim4 (4.84.2), setup for server-side spam-filtering on a Debian/jessie system.

Recently a user reported some false positives. On closer inspection it turns out, that the legit emails were

  1. sent from some dialup IP address (which gets listed in multiple blacklists)
  2. passed on to the mail-server of the sender's ISP (using whatever authentication they had in place), which
  3. then delivered the email to my mail server
  4. which flagged the mail as SPAM because one of the IPs in the "Received" headers was blacklisted

spamassassin matched a handful of blacklist rules (RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB). Note that the email only got positive scores due to the IP being blacklisted.

The relevant header in the email that triggered the SPAM flagging is:

Received: from [10.126.95.175] (unknown [109.126.64.1])
    by smtpfilter1.public.one.com (Halon) with ESMTPSA
    id ee1f1e82-251c-11e7-8f0e-b8ca3afa9d73;
    Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:26:25 +0000 (UTC)

now given that:

  • the mail server(s) of the sender's ISP are all clean (seemingly not listed in any blacklist)

  • I obviously don't know how the sender proves their email legit to their ISP, but I assume that some form of authentication does take place

... I think that spamassassin should not have flagged that email as spam.

To be precise: my gut feeling tells me that spamassassin should properly add SPAM score for mails directly received from blacklisted IP addresses. However, if the mail went through a "clean" MTA (the ISP's mail servers), sa should assume that "they" (the ISP) has taken proper measures to ensure the legitimacy of the email.

Since I'm running my setup for quite some time and haven't had many false positive reports until now, I wonder:

  • Is the above expected behaviour?

  • If not, is the problem on my side (e.g. i misconfigured my spam analysis to take parts of the received-chain into account which it shouldn't. if so, where should i look for a fix?)

  • If not, is the problem on the ISPs side? (e.g. they should better conceal the broken IP addresses from which they accepted authorized emails. if so, should i direct complaints to them?)

0

These SpamAssassin rules matches if A relay in the message's Received headers was listed...

While RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB works closer to what you'd like them all to do:

check tests the IP address of the last untrusted relay against the DNSBL maintained by SORBS.

If you don't trust in these tests, you can always adjust rule scores. score RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET 0 doesn't add any score if the test matches, resulting that the test will be completely disabled.

There's no need for Spamassassin to test against only the latest Received: header as this is the Received from your own MTA that could have done the same test and actually rejected the mail from matching IP address instead of marking it as SPAM.

In Postfix main.cf the equivalent recipient restrictions would be:

smtpd_recipient_restrictions =

    reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
    reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
    reject_rbl_client dnsbl.sorbs.net

And with Exim 4.x in acl_rcpt ACL in the exim.conf:

deny     message  =  Access denied - $sender_host_address\
                     listed by $dnslist_domain\n$dnslist_text
         dnslists =  sbl.spamhaus.org : \
                     bl.spamcop.net : \
                     dnsbl.sorbs.net

If you use Exim dnslists in warn mode, you could simulate RCVD_IN_* style rules on only the last MTA delivery by adding X-blacklisted-at header

warn     message  =  X-blacklisted-at: $dnslist_domain
         dnslists =  sbl.spamhaus.org : \
                     bl.spamcop.net : \
                     dnsbl.sorbs.net

and then scoring the existence (or content of) that header in Spamassassin instead of RCVD_IN_*:

header LAST_RCVD_BLACKLISTED exists:X-blacklisted-at
score LAST_RCVD_BLACKLISTED 10.0

Please notice that these reject lists might be too wide for what you actually need as for example the dnsbl.sorbs.net is a aggregate zone containing almost all SORBS zones available. Before rejecting or even flagging based on these list you should familiarize yourself with the purpose of each list and decide how aggressive you want to be.

Personally I'd trust SPF, DMARC and Bayesian filtering more and would be really sensitive in trusting DNSBLs, i.e. only using lists with IPs certainly only used for spam, like smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net for open SMTP relay servers or edrop.spamhaus.org containing "hijacked" netblocks.

  • the thing is: i do trust the rules' scores; i'm just not convinced that these rules should apply to any Received header (after all, how are people supposed to send email, if they only get dynamic IPs from their home-DSL?) – umläute Apr 20 '17 at 14:00
  • regarding SPF, DMARC,... I use those as well; they just don't play a role with this particular problem... – umläute Apr 20 '17 at 14:01
  • This is how these particular rules are built, their very definition. If you disagree, then lower/disable scoring for any Received matching DNSBL that includes dial-up blocks. – Esa Jokinen Apr 20 '17 at 14:15
0

I found a solution that does what I want. Rather than adjusting the scores, those blacklist rules can be tuned to skip the first (untrusted) hop,

Here's the adjustments I made (the changes are simply adding a -notfirsthop suffix to the expressions; e.g. zen becomes zen-notfirsthop to skip the check for originating IP):

header RCVD_IN_SBL              eval:check_rbl_sub('zen-notfirsthop', '127.0.0.2')
header RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS      eval:check_rbl_sub('zen-notfirsthop', '127.0.0.3')
header RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET   eval:check_rbl_txt('spamcop-notfirsthop', 'bl.spamcop.net.', '(?i:spamcop)')

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.