Re: whitelist_auth return_path / from

"Simon Wilson via users" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general
Message-ID <1037bf-66850280-b-759a9800@160694801>
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, Simon Wilson via users wrote:

> Does whitelist_auth work on From header, or Return-Path? Reason I ask:
>
> 
> 
> I have two emails from “support .at. wasabi.com”. Due to their emails usually triggering KAM rules I have (in
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf):
>
> 
> 
> ## Whitelist Wasabi, subject to passing of auth
> whitelist_auth [email protected]
[snip..]

> The other is not triggering whitelist_auth and is marked as spam due to the KAM rule fails. It has:
> 
> Return-Path: <[email protected]>
> ... <snip>
> From: Wasabi <[email protected]>
> ... <snip>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> 
> Despite passing SPF and DKIM, not whitelisted:
> 
> X-Spam-Score: 20.212
> X-Spam-Level: ********************
> X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.212 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
> tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, DCC_REPUT_99_100=1.4, DKIM_INVALID=0.1,
> DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KAM_BODY_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=0.001,
> KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=1,
> KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC=0.5, LR_DMARC_PASS=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
> SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01]
> autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
[snip]
> 
> Thanks.
> Simon.

You say "passing SPF and DKIM" however in the SA rules report it clearly says:
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_INVALID=0.1

So eventho you think 'passed DKIM' SA clearly does NOT think it does. That 
DKIM_INVALID will prevent the whitelist_auth from firing, thus you need to 
investigate what's going wrong there.


-- 
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center, 103 S Capitol St.
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{

Good spot, thank you.
 
The email that passed (sent from Wasabi's Salesforce) clearly passes SPF and DKIM, and SA accepts that it has passed both:X-Spam-Score: -182.112
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-182.112 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HELO_STATIC_HOST=-0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KAM_BODY_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=0.001, KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC=9,
 KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=1, LR_DMARC_PASS=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01,
 USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100,
 USER_IN_SPF_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_SPF_WHITELIST=-100]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.simonandkate.net ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (amavis.simonandkate.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024)
 with LMTP id FRQBp6eagRev for <[email protected]>;
 Wed,  3 Jul 2024 11:33:21 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	spf=pass smtp.helo=smtp-0e3fa5fa5492d81fe.core1.sfdc-lywfpd.mta.salesforce.com;
	spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=44.227.237.13
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=wasabi.com [email protected] header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sfdcproduction header.b=VPfjwPoA
Received: from smtp-0e3fa5fa5492d81fe.core1.sfdc-lywfpd.mta.salesforce.com (smtp-0e3fa5fa5492d81fe.core1.sfdc-lywfpd.mta.salesforce.com [44.227.237.13])
	by mail.simonandkate.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E4460E1
	for <[email protected]>; Wed,  3 Jul 2024 11:33:20 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wasabi.com;
	s=sfdcproduction; t=1719970393;
	bh=HT3vxtae+200eJTAlHJkPaLUuYEbpqXqTkY70+hSYa4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
	b=VPfjwPoAe8Gu3ruU2nvnYYggXO5JZ/7IaxEDNaBsvvxIZ5PHW+7rXN1usl5qmJZ5u
	 asB0RBBCXNTH/5SDXXJEu1Pc6jRvsdc+POPLrkQkHqhXgX1DmUjnVYnDBA2tu/8RIk
	 M7ISxYS4psZXdm73/ZF7sILSdS+USXdTM5JlfbV4=
 
The failed one is assessed by OpenDKIM as having passed by my server (mail.simonandkate.net), but you are correct SA sees it as invalid.
 
So I guess the question is why SA is not accepting a trusted header with a DKIM pass recorded with the same mail path through the system? I have no AuthRes settings set specifically in local.cf.
 X-Spam-Score: 20.212
X-Spam-Level: ********************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=20.212 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, DCC_REPUT_99_100=1.4, DKIM_INVALID=0.1,
 DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KAM_BODY_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=0.001,
 KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC=9, KAM_MARKETINGBL_PCCC=1,
 KAM_REALLYHUGEIMGSRC=0.5, LR_DMARC_PASS=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.simonandkate.net ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (amavis.simonandkate.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024)
 with LMTP id 0dPigJ_ugPPb for <[email protected]>;
 Wed,  3 Jul 2024 07:48:51 +1000 (AEST)
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	spf=none smtp.helo=o562.ptr9861.wasabi.com;
	spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mmemail.wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=wasabi.com
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=159.183.86.216
Authentication-Results: mail.simonandkate.net;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=wasabi.com [email protected] header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mmd header.b=uhRSt2r0
Received: from o562.ptr9861.wasabi.com (o562.ptr9861.wasabi.com [159.183.86.216])
	by mail.simonandkate.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C105157044
	for <[email protected]>; Wed,  3 Jul 2024 07:48:47 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wasabi.com;
	h=content-type:from:mime-version:subject:reply-to:to:list-unsubscribe:
	list-unsubscribe-post:cc:content-type:from:subject:to;
	s=mmd; bh=cy4eC8HJMJh8b6CwYtOAzArbHod4C/sAQkNIrkSQFPA=;
	b=uhRSt2r0lE9yE6sSCc7+QA90N0PCyzA0FNP0bOo2ApH/U+u6yCpjvt0KZJ+VO2MfDKuh
	xmzJPFgaHNvajQDOyqfLCfF4xwTrxYyBaKTMf/qinqP6JHpFsKVaDNykv96ZIac/SwRbha
	SO4yPkPl1NO5k4ENyD5va2J9LftRyQ0te+awrnbjypQAKJiJ0yPoqNTFCJZGdQSCuJOZG8
	ASnJcPZRoL2J83FEJCMPZdS5Wpf0GAgHp7aEpzAFf7TEpfJA8IMsbRSlRs3ptdZtYvwKMR
	K6oi/d+w3UBSdFGRpRFZlgFeVjNIp/xCz5pDGf7109C0A+QSjn4zZ3edrOjF1JPg==
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.