Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, lanz@fowi.ethz.ch wrote:

> spam.el does not find the name of the blackhole server if the name
> of the server is - within the received header field - not enclosed
> with [] parantheses. But this seems to be quite often the case.
> 
> I know nothing about internet header field standards. Are the []
> paranthesis required? Do we find too many (or even wrong) host names
> if spam-check-blackholes would not require these parantheses
> surrounding a host name? For shure, I get many mail messages. where
> the host name of the sender is not in the [] parantheses, but
> instead often (allways?) in () parantheses as in this example from
> today:
> 
> Received: (qmail 17288 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000
> Delivered-To: adrian.lanz@wsl.ch Received: (qmail 17282 invoked by
> uid 154); 20 Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000 Received: from
> d.rouse_gt@di-net.ru by mail by uid 151 with qmail-scanner-1.10
> (uvscan: v4.1.60/v4298. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.98984 secs); 20
> Oct 2003 03:52:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inbox.lv)
> (211.44.152.166) by 0 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 03:52:50 -0000

That's an excellent question, unfortunately I don't know the answer.
Lars wrote the original code to check the blackholes, and I'll be
happy to add whatever regexp is necessary - but let's make sure it's
the correct one.  If anyone knows for sure, or wants to point me to a
relevant standard (I don't know of such a thing) I would appreciate
the information.

Thanks
Ted

Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Jesper Harder]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

[Received-lines]

> If anyone knows for sure, or wants to point me to a relevant
> standard (I don't know of such a thing) I would appreciate the
> information.

RFC 2821, section 4.4.

Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, harder@myrealbox.com wrote:

> RFC 2821, section 4.4.

Looks like there is no parenthesis requirement for IP addresses,
based on the RFC, so I will remove that and just use any IP address
detected in the headers.

Thanks!
Ted

Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Reiner Steib]

On Thu, Oct 23 2003, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> Looks like there is no parenthesis requirement for IP addresses,
> based on the RFC, so I will remove that and just use any IP address
> detected in the headers.

| --- spam.el:6.118	Tue Oct 21 20:57:34 2003
| +++ spam.el	Thu Oct 23 18:14:39 2003
| @@ -772,7 +772,7 @@
|  	(goto-char (point-min))
|  	(gnus-message 5 "Checking headers for relay addresses")
|  	(while (re-search-forward
| -		"\\[\\([0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+\\)\\]" nil t)
| +		"\\([0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+\\)" nil t)

Shouldn't this be »\\.«  instead of ».«?

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW   http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: spam.el searching blackhole servers

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, 4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de wrote:

On Thu, Oct 23 2003, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> 
>> Looks like there is no parenthesis requirement for IP addresses,
>> based on the RFC, so I will remove that and just use any IP address
>> detected in the headers.
> 
> | --- spam.el:6.118	Tue Oct 21 20:57:34 2003
> | +++ spam.el	Thu Oct 23 18:14:39 2003
> | @@ -772,7 +772,7 @@
> |  	(goto-char (point-min))
> |  	(gnus-message 5 "Checking headers for relay addresses")
> |  	(while (re-search-forward
> | -		"\\[\\([0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+\\)\\]" nil t)
> | +		"\\([0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+.[0-9]+\\)" nil t)
> 
> Shouldn't this be »\\.«  instead of ».«?

Correct, I fixed it.

Ted