Hi list
I got a message with these (censored) headers recently:
Delivered-To: me@shcorp.com
Return-Path: <service@paypal.com>
<internal Received header deleted>
Received: from ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
(ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.13.58.194])
by madagascar.shcorp.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with SMTP id
<scrambled>
for <me@shcorp.com>; <date scrambled>
Received: from paypal.com (smtp1.nix.paypal.com [64.4.240.74])
by ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id
<scrambled>
for <me@shcorp.com>; <date scrambled>
From: service <service@paypal.com>
To: me <me@shcorp.com>
Subject: Confirm Your Information!
Date: <scrambled>
Message-ID: <scrambled@paypal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_scrambled"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2505.0000
X-Kaspersky-Antivirus: passed
Unfortunately, SA seems to think that this information is enough to score this
message heavily negative. I don't know how it is making this decision, since
the only reliable information is of course the ip address of the connecting
server; in this case ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
[80.13.58.194]. I checked the BSP list and this IP is definitely not in there.
I'd guess the same for the default whitelist.
Is this a bug in the SA code or implementation? Or am I missing something?
Please let me know; I'm setting both of these scores to 0 for now.
--
Kurt Yoder
Sport & Health network administrator
I got a message with these (censored) headers recently:
Delivered-To: me@shcorp.com
Return-Path: <service@paypal.com>
<internal Received header deleted>
Received: from ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
(ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.13.58.194])
by madagascar.shcorp.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with SMTP id
<scrambled>
for <me@shcorp.com>; <date scrambled>
Received: from paypal.com (smtp1.nix.paypal.com [64.4.240.74])
by ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id
<scrambled>
for <me@shcorp.com>; <date scrambled>
From: service <service@paypal.com>
To: me <me@shcorp.com>
Subject: Confirm Your Information!
Date: <scrambled>
Message-ID: <scrambled@paypal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_scrambled"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2505.0000
X-Kaspersky-Antivirus: passed
Unfortunately, SA seems to think that this information is enough to score this
message heavily negative. I don't know how it is making this decision, since
the only reliable information is of course the ip address of the connecting
server; in this case ANeuilly-105-1-3-194.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
[80.13.58.194]. I checked the BSP list and this IP is definitely not in there.
I'd guess the same for the default whitelist.
Is this a bug in the SA code or implementation? Or am I missing something?
Please let me know; I'm setting both of these scores to 0 for now.
--
Kurt Yoder
Sport & Health network administrator