Exception in newsletter module

Discuss here all what concerns the MailCleaner anti-spam efficiency, share your rulesets and tips for SpamAssassin !

Moderators: Pascal, mentor, FlorianB, bourgeois

cglmicro
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:12 am
How did you hear about Mailcleaner: google

Exception in newsletter module

Postby cglmicro » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:40 pm

Hi guys.

The newsletter module keep blocking mail from the same sender, even when I "authorize" the newsletter from the quarantaine report.
The reason is simple: it's looking for the SMTP FROM address instead of the other FROM:

Code: Select all

...
   from <bounce-mc.us11_47947465.957885-x.yyyyyy=cglmicro.ca@mail89.suw13.rsgsv.net>; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 08:24:42 -0400
X-MailCleaner-Forced: message forced
...
From: =?utf-8?Q?Xcel=20Source=20Corp?= <sales@real-address.com>


The SMTP FROM address keep changing every time: bounce-mc.us11_47947465.957885-x.yyyyyy ... .rsgsv.net. I have this behavior also with Amazones server.

I don't want to add the *.rsgsv.net or *.amazones.com to SMTP > DON'T CHECK and ANTISPAM > PRE-RBL > DON'T CHECK since I'm afraid to let too many spams in; am I right? If I add their servers, my only protection will be ClamSpam, UriRBLs and SPAMC.

Any suggestion for newsletter module to look for the other FROM to whitelist?

Thank you.
FlorianB
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:27 pm
How did you hear about Mailcleaner: job

Re: Exception in newsletter module

Postby FlorianB » Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:11 pm

Hello,
Not really possible or complicated.
But a newsletter should have a envelope from corresponding to the real sender and not varying and a from or sender header "spoofing" the customer (people buyging newsletter sender services) adress. So 95% of newsletter are correctly released like this and some don't respect this principle.
The from vary too often, and newsletter change their from often too (in some years, all my gmail filters have been redone multiple times) so there is no correct solution. Maybe check both mail from and from, but would need to change the way it is coded.
Regards,
Florian

Return to “Filter efficiency”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest