Bug 7033 - dns: no callback unusual errors seen in logs
Summary: dns: no callback unusual errors seen in logs
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: spamc/spamd (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4.0
Hardware: All Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: Undefined
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-04-11 19:15 UTC by Carlos Velasco
Modified: 2023-03-29 13:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Carlos Velasco 2014-04-11 19:15:45 UTC 
After upgrading to 3.4.0 I see some errors about "dns: no callback" from time to time (no more than 10 a day). But I think that the DNS requests and replies are correct.

Example 1:
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: no callback for id 24333/IN/A/planeo.com.dbl.spamhaus.org, ignored; packet: ;; Answer received from 127.0.0.1 (120 bytes)
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; HEADER SECTION
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; id = 24333
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; qr = 1 aa = 0 tc = 0 rd = 1 opcode = QUERY
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; ra = 1 z = 0 ad = 0 cd = 0 rcode = NXDOMAIN
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; qdcount = 1 ancount = 0 nscount = 1 arcount = 1
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; do = 0
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; EDNS version 0
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; flags: 0000
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; rcode: NOERROR
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; size: 4096
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; option:
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...]
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...]
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; QUESTION SECTION (1 record)
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; planeo.com.dbl.spamhaus.org. IN A
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...]
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; ANSWER SECTION (0 records)
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...]
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; AUTHORITY SECTION (1 record)
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] dbl.spamhaus.org. 60 IN SOA need.to.know.only. hostmaster.spamhaus.org. (
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] 1404110652 ;serial
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] 3600 ;refresh
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] 600 ;retry
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] 432000 ;expire
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] 60 ) ;minimum
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...]
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION (1 record)
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; EDNS version 0
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; flags: 0000
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; rcode: NOERROR
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; size: 4096
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: [...] ;; option:
Apr 11 08:53:10 spamd[9033]: dns: no likely matching queries for id 24333

According to spamhaus doc, NXDOMAIN is ok:
http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/section/Spamhaus%20DBL#291


Example 2:

Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: no callback for id 44248/IN/A/241.2.144.193.list.dnswl.org, ignored; packet: ;; Answer received from 127.0.0.1 (560 bytes)
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; HEADER SECTION
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; id = 44248
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; qr = 1 aa = 0 tc = 0 rd = 1 opcode = QUERY
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; ra = 1 z = 0 ad = 0 cd = 0 rcode = NOERROR
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; qdcount = 1 ancount = 1 nscount = 12 arcount = 17
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; do = 0
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; EDNS version 0
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; flags: 0000
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; rcode: NOERROR
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; size: 4096
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; option:
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...]
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...]
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; QUESTION SECTION (1 record)
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; 241.2.144.193.list.dnswl.org. IN A
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...]
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; ANSWER SECTION (1 record)
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] 241.2.144.193.list.dnswl.org. 28800 IN A 127.0.10.2
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...]
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; AUTHORITY SECTION (12 records)
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS h.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS f.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS k.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS b.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS e.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS c.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS i.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS j.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS g.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS l.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS a.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] list.dnswl.org. 63679 IN NS d.ns.dnswl.org.
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...]
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION (17 records)
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] a.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 85.25.63.16
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] b.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 74.208.14.82
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] c.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 208.67.172.131
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] d.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 194.124.232.115
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] e.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 88.198.92.228
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] e.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN AAAA 2a01:4f8:131:3e1::66
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] f.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 85.25.63.16
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] g.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 38.229.76.4
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] g.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN AAAA 2620:0:6b0:a:250:56ff:fe99:4d
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] h.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 194.109.9.15
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] i.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 64.71.152.40
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] i.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN AAAA 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe96:340b
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] j.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 80.237.138.27
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] k.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 173.255.241.134
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] l.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 203.26.24.89
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] l.ns.dnswl.org. 63679 IN A 203.26.24.88
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; EDNS version 0
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; flags: 0000
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; rcode: NOERROR
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; size: 4096
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: [...] ;; option:
Apr  8 08:41:22 spamd[17799]: dns: no likely matching queries for id 44248


According to dnswl doc, 127.0.10.2 reply is correct:
http://www.dnswl.org/tech#returncodes

I don't know why these DNS lookups are failing.
Comment 1 Mark Martinec 2014-12-18 00:51:30 UTC 
This happens when a DNS response comes late and ALARM signal
interrupts its decoding. They call it a 'design feature',
I call it bug:
  https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=83451

Not much we can do without giving up use of alarms during
a call to Net::DNS.
Comment 2 Mark Martinec 2015-02-24 00:53:24 UTC 
> Not much we can do without giving up use of alarms during
> a call to Net::DNS.

Unfortunately: WONTFIX, as the problem is outside of SpamAssassin
and I don't see an obvious workaround.
Comment 3 Reindl Harald 2016-07-10 15:16:15 UTC 
> This is not an unfortunate oversight, it is a design feature. 
> Some applications need to know about damaged and incomplete packets, 
> so Net::DNS needs to represent them

is pure nonsense . that "some applications" need to set a property to request such a behavior, but spit 4500 "spamd: dns:" within a few days in the log when nobody can do anything about it is bad