IPv6 and spam.whitelist.rules

Paul Overton paul at trusted-management.com
Mon Mar 14 16:56:11 UTC 2016

Just gone back over a few months of operation, the CIDR blocks in spam.whitelist.rules did work fine until I added IPv6 into the equation.

The error I was getting appeared to be the attempt to compare the addresses in the whitelist with the servers own address. (Line 533 of Config.pm) where Net::CIDR ended up comparing an IPv4 block with a single IPv6 address. Naturally it did not work.

I have changed the format of my whitelist file to use the format you indicated below and all is well. However the format is very limiting in terms of managing white lists.

Thanks anyway.


From: MailScanner [mailto:mailscanner-bounces+paul=trusted-management.com at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Jerry Benton
Sent: 14 March 2016 15:44
To: MailScanner Discussion <mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>
Subject: Re: IPv6 and spam.whitelist.rules

As far as I know MailScanner does not support CIDR blocks. You would have to use something like this:


to represent

Jerry Benton

On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Paul Overton <paul at trusted-management.com<mailto:paul at trusted-management.com>> wrote:

Dear All,

I have recently updated our network to be fully IPv6/IPv4 dual stack operation. Whilst doing this I have updated our MailSanners (x5). Two of them had no issues that other three failed as below.

For some time I have occasionally used a whitelist for a whole network, there (for example) I have used a netmask xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/27 which appeared to work, however  when I updated our systems to use IPv6. MailScanner (Spam Detection) stopped working if email was received in using IPv6. After some debugging it appeared that  the reading of the whitelist which is being passed by Mail::CIDR, was erroring with “Invalid Netblock:”.

I have re-configured the spam.whitelist.rules file to remove all / notations and all is now working again.

My systems are based on Slackware Linux, Sendmail (8.15.1) and MailScanner  4.85.2-3. Perl modules up to date.

Is this expected behaviour, or is this unexpected behaviour, or have I interpreted the whitelist format incorrectly ?



This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Trusted Management Limited<http://www.trusted-management.com/>, and is
believed to be clean.

MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info<mailto:mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info>

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Trusted Management Limited, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20160314/762c28fa/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the MailScanner mailing list