Strange ?! Thanks for extracting the patch. Best,
Erik Am Dienstag, dem 17.02.2026 um 15:44 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer: > Hello, > > I don’t quite know why, but rspamd considered this email very spammy: > > 2026-02-17 09:07:17 #2317039(rspamd_proxy) <82c6da>; proxy; > rspamd_task_write_log: id: > <[email protected]>, qid: <4fFYgT4dNNz5gt>, > ip: 172.28.1.201, from: <[email protected]>, (default: T > (reject): [12.21/11.00] > [URL_OBFUSCATED_TEXT(9.00){type=bracket_dots;url= > http://github.com;orig= ZONEMD RR (type 63) create phantom QNAME > trigger ;orig=ZONEMD RR (type 63) create phantom QNAME trigger > f;},SPAM_FLAG(5.00){},INTERNAL_BULK_SENDERS_IGNORED_AUTOLEARN(- > 2.00){},MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00){},NEURAL_HAM(-1.00){- > 1.000;},R_MISSING_CHARSET(0.50){},MAILLIST(- > 0.17){generic;},MIME_GOOD(-0.10){text/plain;},HAS_LIST_UNSUB(- > 0.01){},ALIAS_RESOLVED(0.00){},ARC_NA(0.00){},BAYES_SPAM(0.00){99.99% > ;},FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00){},FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00){}, > FROM_HAS_DN(0.00){},FROM_INTERNAL_BULK_SENDERS(0.00){172.28.1.201;},F > ROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00) > {[email protected];[email protected];},LOCAL_OUTBOUND(0. > 00){},MIME_TRACE(0.00){0:+;},MISSING_XM_UA(0.00){},RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.0 > 0){2;},RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00){3;},RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00){},RCVD_VIA_SMTP > _AUTH(0.00){},RECEIVED_HELO_LOCALHOST(0.00){},TAGGED_FROM(0.00){bounc > es-1725-XXX;},TO_DN_SOME(0.00){}]), len: 5175, time: 20.925ms, dns > req: 21, digest: <4a22acd73bc52a0abae6476f118c1260>, rcpts: <XXX>, > mime_rcpts: <[email protected],[email protected]> > > I don’t know what has caused the high score of the obfuscated URL > which already scored 9 out of a total 12.21 points. > > The email also had "X-Spam: Yes” set in its headers which did not > come from us. > > I will extract the patch from the archive. > > -Michael > > > On 17 Feb 2026, at 12:29, ummeegge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, have send it to the list. Have a bouncing message report "Hi, > > this > > is the Mlmmj program managing the <[email protected]> > > mailing list. > > > > Some messages to you could not be delivered. If you're seeing this > > message it means things are back to normal, and it's merely for > > your > > information. > > > > Here is the list of the bounced messages: > > - 1725" . > > In the list i can see it here > > https://lists.ipfire.org/development/[email protected]/T/#u > > ??? > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 17.02.2026 um 10:13 +0000 schrieb Michael Tremer: > > > Hello Erik, > > > > > > Where has it been sent to? To this list? > > > > > > I did not receive anything. > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > On 17 Feb 2026, at 09:18, ummeegge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > sure. Patch has been delivered. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > Am Montag, dem 16.02.2026 um 16:11 +0000 schrieb Michael > > > > Tremer: > > > > > Hello Erik, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > > > Good to hear that your problem could be solved upstream. > > > > > > > > > > Will you provide a patch to fix this in IPFire before the > > > > > next > > > > > release of Unbound? > > > > > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Feb 2026, at 13:30, ummeegge <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it took longer since I discovered it and I simply > > > > > > wanted > > > > > > to > > > > > > share > > > > > > the insights with you all – thought it makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Issue was opened yesterday: > > > > > > https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/issues/1404 > > > > > > The fix has been committed today to the maintainer's fork: > > > > > > https://github.com/dwongdev/unbound/commit/16e1e6d375e93e6c00c9b5d20ec4e50fb55d961f > > > > > > It's a kind of "Root Cause Analysis" that delivered it > > > > > > there, > > > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > issue is meanwhile marked as 'completed' (low hanging fruit > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > ). > > > > > > Hopefully it will soon be merged upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have also tested the patch here now and it works like it > > > > > > should: > > > > > > AXFR/IXFR with multiple DBL zones, no problems at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Montag, dem 16.02.2026 um 11:35 +0000 schrieb Michael > > > > > > Tremer: > > > > > > > Hello Erik, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a *very* long email to tell us about a bug in > > > > > > > Unbound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you report your problem there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Feb 2026, at 11:58, ummeegge > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've identified a compatibility issue with the IPFire > > > > > > > > Domain > > > > > > > > Blocklist > > > > > > > > (DBL) RPZ zones. These zones contain a ZONEMD record > > > > > > > > (Type > > > > > > > > 63) > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > zone apex (e.g., ads.rpz.ipfire.org. 60 IN ZONEMD ...), > > > > > > > > intended > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > data integrity checks. This record causes a critical > > > > > > > > failure in > > > > > > > > Unbound > > > > > > > > DNS resolver when used with RPZ. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Impact was here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DNSSEC Failure: Unbound does not ignore the ZONEMD > > > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > RPZ processing and mistakenly interprets the zone apex > > > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > policy rule for the root name (.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Symptoms: After loading more than one IPFire RPZ > > > > > > > > zone or > > > > > > > > modifying > > > > > > > > the configuration file and restarting/reloading > > > > > > > > Unbound, > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > resolver > > > > > > > > fails to prime its DNSSEC trust anchor. Typical log > > > > > > > > entries: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unbound: info: rpz: applied [dbl-ads] . rpz-local- > > > > > > > > data . > > > > > > > > DNSKEY > > > > > > > > IN > > > > > > > > unbound: info: failed to prime trust anchor -- could > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > fetch > > > > > > > > DNSKEY rrset . DNSKEY IN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Result: All DNSSEC validation fails, rendering the > > > > > > > > resolver > > > > > > > > unable > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > resolve any domain names and effectively breaking DNS > > > > > > > > resolution > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the entire network. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue affects more users, as confirmed by Unbound > > > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > > > Issue > > > > > > > > #1404 (verified in Unbound 1.24.1/1.24.2) and > > > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > #1152. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Technical Cause: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Unbound's RPZ implementation (services/rpz.c), the > > > > > > > > function > > > > > > > > rpz_type_ignored() filters out DNSSEC-related records > > > > > > > > (DNSKEY, > > > > > > > > RRSIG, > > > > > > > > NSEC, etc.) to prevent them from being treated as > > > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > rules. > > > > > > > > ZONEMD > > > > > > > > (RFC 8976, Type 63) is missing from this ignore list – > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > IMHO > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > Unbound bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Loading process: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unbound reads the apex ZONEMD record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rpz_type_ignored(63) returns 0 → record gets > > > > > > > > processed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strip_dname_origin() removes the zone name → empty > > > > > > > > label > > > > > > > > (.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A rpz-local-data rule for . is created, blocking > > > > > > > > root > > > > > > > > DNSKEY > > > > > > > > priming queries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: A detailed analysis and proposed fix (add case > > > > > > > > LDNS_RR_TYPE_ZONEMD: to rpz_type_ignored()) has been > > > > > > > > submitted > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > Unbound Issue #1404. The root cause lies with Unbound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reproduction Steps: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Configure one IPFire DBL RPZ zone (e.g., > > > > > > > > ads.rpz.ipfire.org) > > > > > > > > following the instructions from > > > > > > > > https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/how-to-use . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Restart Unbound → zone gets cached (may still work > > > > > > > > initially). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modify the configuration or add a second zone and > > > > > > > > restart > > > > > > > > Unbound > > > > > > > > again → priming failure appears in logs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested with Unbound 1.24.1 on IPFire Core 199 and > > > > > > > > Unbound > > > > > > > > 1.24.2 on > > > > > > > > Rocky Linux 8.10 (on Unbounds Github). Single zone may > > > > > > > > load > > > > > > > > initially, > > > > > > > > but fails reliably with config changes or by adding > > > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > zones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current temporary workaround: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove ZONEMD records post-download via script (e.g., > > > > > > > > cron > > > > > > > > job > > > > > > > > after > > > > > > > > AXFR): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sed -i '/IN[[:space:]]\+ZONEMD/d' > > > > > > > > /var/lib/unbound/*.rpz.ipfire.org.zone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then reload Unbound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While Unbound developers might likely investigate and > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > rpz_type_ignored() (Issue #1404), which way should > > > > > > > > IPFire > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > until then – since this blocks testing the Beta DBL > > > > > > > > usage > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > Unbound > > > > > > > > (great project)? Haven´t tested a patched version of > > > > > > > > Unbound > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > i > > > > > > > > have currently no build environment around but if > > > > > > > > again, am > > > > > > > > happy > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > test preview versions! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May someone have similar problems or even another > > > > > > > > workaround or > > > > > > > > potential Fix for this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
