SA Bugzilla – Bug 6538
Reporting illegal IP address
Last modified: 2011-03-22 22:42:51 UTC
Reporting illegal IP address Hello I have started getting SPAM listed as “IP Received: contains illegal IP address”: My ISP is a large UK company so I don’t think that there should be any issues with the validity of the IP address. X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.2 required=1.0 tests=RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Report: * 3.2 RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP Received: contains illegal IP address (unknown [2.102.63.xxx]) Thank you
> I have started getting SPAM listed as “IP Received: contains illegal IP > address”: My ISP is a large UK company so I don’t think that there should be > any issues with the validity of the IP address. > > X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=3.2 required=1.0 tests=RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP > shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 > X-Spam-Report: > * 3.2 Received: contains illegal IP address > > (unknown [2.102.63.xxx]) That was fixed in 3.3 branch and in 3.4/trunk, but not backported to 3.2. I suggest you either upgrade to 3.3.1, or disable that rule by setting its score to 0 in your local.cf: score RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP 0 The default score (3.199 3.196 2.902 1.908) for that rule is quite large and for people still stuck with 3.2.5 this is becoming more and more a serious issue. Do we still bother with 3.2 branch (it is not a security issue, but still a pain)? Suggestions?
This is likely a duplicate of bug 6465, 6460 and related bugs and is already fixed in SVN and 3.3. 3.2.5 is not current and should likely be upgraded. Regards, KAM
Should we declare that 3.2.x will no longer supported? This matter is not clearly understood and it would be helpful to eliminate any ambiguity.
(In reply to comment #3) > Should we declare that 3.2.x will no longer supported? This matter is not > clearly understood and it would be helpful to eliminate any ambiguity. I don't know that we have an official policy that we won't backport to 3.2.X but it would likely have to be a security issue or something serious. A key point of 3.3 was to try and move rules out of the core so rule updates could be done more readily. This is basically just a rule update and they would be best served by upgrading. Of course, now I'm worried that the current sa-update doesn't include this rule fix...
> This is basically just a rule update and they would be best served by > upgrading. Of course, now I'm worried that the current sa-update doesn't > include this rule fix... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-commits/201001.mbox/%3C20100101205251.0EDF623889BB@eris.apache.org%3E The last time 3.2.x pushed an update to the sa-update channel was January 1st, 2010, probably for the year 2010 bug. [root@server updates_spamassassin_org]# pwd /var/lib/spamassassin/3.002005/updates_spamassassin_org [root@server updates_spamassassin_org]# grep RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP * 20_head_tests.cf:header RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP eval:check_for_illegal_ip() 20_head_tests.cf:describe RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP Received: contains illegal IP address 30_text_de.cf:lang de describe RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP "Received"-Kopfzeilen enthalten ung�ltige IP-Adresse 50_scores.cf:score RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP 3.199 3.196 2.902 1.908
Closing as a duplicate of Bug 6552 (and several others: Bug 6460, Bug 6465, Bug 6516, Bug 6299, Bug 6467, Bug 6475, Bug 6498). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6552 ***