Issue with RSpamd

I have myself a spam wave, they use forged sender email, I am not sure that a bayes filter can help.

I needed to check and find the exact sender in the maillog transaction to reject them. They have a really good MX and DNS set, they are better than us :smiley:

19896:Mar  8 12:44:27 prometheus rspamd[8110]: <901b7b>; proxy; rspamd_task_write_log: id: <9389962d5972dcafff1400e966a7ced3@curlylimit.com>, qid: <1188918D999C0>, ip: 5.135.203.49, from: <newsletter@curlylimit.com>, (default: F (no action): [3.78/19.90] [FROM_EXCESS_QP(1.20){},SUBJ_EXCESS_QP(1.20){},URI_COUNT_ODD(1.00){5;},IP_REPUTATION_SPAM(0.75){asn: 16276(0.19), country: FR(-0.00), ip: 5.135.203.49(0.00);},R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20){curlylimit.com:s=dkim;},R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20){+ip4:5.135.203.49;},MIME_GOOD(-0.10){multipart/alternative;text/plain;},ZERO_FONT(0.10){1;},MANY_INVISIBLE_PARTS(0.05){1;},HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01){},MX_GOOD(-0.01){},ASN(0.00){asn:16276, ipnet:5.135.0.0/16, country:FR;},DKIM_TRACE(0.00){curlylimit.com:+;},DMARC_NA(0.00){curlylimit.com;},FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00){},FROM_HAS_DN(0.00){},MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00){},MIME_TRACE(0.00){0:+;1:+;2:~;},NEURAL_HAM(0.00){-0.337;},RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00){1;},RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00){0;},TO_DN_ALL(0.00){},TO_EXCESS_QP(0.00){},TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00){}]), len: 13385, time: 219.536ms, dns req: 27, digest: <5fac38cf8b5ed85aeec2b5c4e0291f74>, rcpts: <stephane@domain.com>, mime_rcpts: <stephane@domain.com>



18179:Mar  8 08:35:36 prometheus rspamd[8110]: <6c11c6>; proxy; rspamd_task_write_log: id: <8189cf40540cccd4a0c0a514eaa59d2b@paltryeffect.com>, qid: <BE31518D99BE2>, ip: 212.227.126.187, from: <SRS0=y9vl=TT=paltryeffect.com=newsletter@srs2.kundenserver.de>, (default: F (no action): [0.91/19.90] [FROM_EXCESS_QP(1.20){},TO_EXCESS_QP(1.20){},URI_COUNT_ODD(1.00){5;},IP_REPUTATION_HAM(-0.75){asn: 8560(-0.18), country: DE(-0.00), ip: 212.227.126.187(-0.57);},BAYES_HAM(-0.58){81.47%;},GENERIC_REPUTATION(-0.58){-0.58107106869464;},DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50){paltryeffect.com;none;},FORGED_SENDER(0.30){newsletter@paltryeffect.com;SRS0=y9vl=TT=paltryeffect.com=newsletter@srs2.kundenserver.de;},R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20){paltryeffect.com:s=dkim;},R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20){+ip4:212.227.126.128/25:c;},MIME_GOOD(-0.10){multipart/alternative;text/plain;},ZERO_FONT(0.10){1;},MANY_INVISIBLE_PARTS(0.05){1;},HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01){},MX_GOOD(-0.01){},ASN(0.00){asn:8560, ipnet:212.227.0.0/16, country:DE;},DKIM_TRACE(0.00){paltryeffect.com:+;},FROM_HAS_DN(0.00){},FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00){newsletter@paltryeffect.com;SRS0=y9vl=TT=paltryeffect.com=newsletter@srs2.kundenserver.de;},MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00){},MIME_TRACE(0.00){0:+;1:+;2:~;},NEURAL_HAM(0.00){-0.990;},PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00){stephane@domain.com;},RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00){1;},RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00){2;},RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00){212.227.126.187:from;},RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00){},RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00){212.227.126.187:from;},TO_DN_ALL(0.00){},TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00){}]), len: 13603, time: 367.463ms, dns req: 32, digest: <7d429949e2b38af1459d9a0fa01cce91>, rcpts: <stephane@domain.com>, mime_rcpts: <stephane@domain.com>

Often SPF is useful for this kind of unwanted traffic.
And Greylisting might lower the fake sender queue… until they become part of lists (blacklists, ipthreat lists, firehol lists, crowsourced lists…)

I have implemented SPF and graylisting (together with TLSA/DMARC/DANE), but recognize the same big spam wave.

Additionally, my WordPress firewall reports a lot of critical attacks like Brute-force each day.