Re: skip checking for mail address
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.virus.amavis.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello, we managed to change source address of the mail from null <> to the same that is in From: header, so finally I should be able to avoid scanning. >>On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 15:37, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>seems that addresses used in bypass_virus_checks_maps and >>>bypass_spam_checks_maps, are the envelope from addresses. >>> >>>We have gateway that sends reports with envelope addresses empty ("<>"), but >>>From: in headers is in form [email protected] >>> >>>unfortunately, other mails come through the gateway with emppty envelope >>>from, so the only address I can safely (gateway takes care of faking the >>>address) whitelist is therefore the header address. >>> >>>is it possible to use header address in whitelisting? >>> >>>Or is there any trick to whitelist such address? >On 18.05.20 15:52, Dominic Raferd wrote: >>@whitelist_sender_maps whitelists based on either of the From header >>address or the envelope sender address. On 18.05.20 19:43, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >well, I have tried to $bypass_spam_checks{'[email protected]'}=1; > >and with address in From: was scanned and smavisd even logged: > >May 18 17:00:11 mail amavis[5414]: (05414-11) Passed CLEAN {RelayedInbound}, >[x.x.x.x]:29354 ESMTP/LMTP <> -> <redacted>, (), Queue-ID: X, >Message-ID: <[email protected]>, mail_id: >UWTOVxZdTfiR, b: tpOHtsF7t, Hits: -16, size: 24677, queued_as: Y, >Subject: "Quarantine Summary: [ 2 message(s) quarantined from Mon, 18 May >2020 14:00:00 +0200 to Mon, 18 May 2", From: <[email protected]>, >helo=mail.gateway, Tests: >[ALL_TRUSTED=-1,BAYES_40=-0.001,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15], >autolearn=no autolearn_force=no, autolearnscore=0.001, 7810 ms > > >>(It is not very good behaviour >>IMO: I suspect the code was really written for @blacklist_sender_maps >>and just carried over to work with the whitelist, the behaviour is >>conservative for a blacklist but risks letting through bad stuff with >>a whitelist. I don't use this type of whitelisting at all any more.) > >I agree that simply whitelisting sender is not safe. We must make it safe >ourselves. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh".