Got some insight from the debug log.

Does anybody know what the 2 0 0 represents?

userforward router skipped: verify 2 0 0

There’s a suspicion that this is a bug introduced by the DirectAdmin folks into 
their configuration 4.5.26… previous 4.5.25 worked fine.

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Robert Nicholson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Some changes my ISP made from their perspective to simplify things.
> 
> They added 
> 
> as the first router
> 
> #EDIT#48:
> 
> .include_if_exists /etc/exim.routers.pre.conf
> 
> that’s essentially a clone of userforward
> 
> defaultforward:
>  driver = redirect
>  domains = lsearch,ret=key;/etc/virtual/domainowners
>  allow_filter
>  check_ancestor
>  check_local_user
>  no_expn
>  file = $home/.forward
>  file_transport = address_file
>  pipe_transport = address_pipe
>  reply_transport = address_reply
>  directory_transport = address_directory
>  no_verify
> 
> This was added well before the 
> 
> .include_if_exists /etc/exim.spamassassin.conf
> 
> which looks like this
> 
> #1.4
> # Spam Assassin
> spamcheck_director:
>  driver = accept
>  condition = ${if !eq{$acl_m_spam_assassin_has_run}{1}}
>  condition = ${if !eq{$acl_c_spam_assassin_has_run}{1}}
>  condition = "${if and { \
>                       {!eq {$received_protocol}{spam-scanned}} \
>                       {!eq {$received_protocol}{local}} \
>                       
> {exists{${extract{5}{:}{${lookup{${lookup{$domain}lsearch*{/etc/virtual/domainowners}{$value}}}lsearch{/etc/passwd}{$value}}}}/.spamassassin/user_prefs}}
>  \
>                       {<{$message_size}{500k}} \
>               } {1}{0}}"
>  retry_use_local_part
>  headers_remove = 
> X-Spam-Flag:X-Spam-Report:X-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Level:X-Spam-Checker-Version
>  transport = spamcheck
>  no_verify
> 
> Prior to the most recent change my earlier -bV tests were showing the router 
> spamcheck_director as the chosen one.
> 
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Robert Nicholson <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m not an exim admin so I don’t have debugging permission.
>> 
>> Failing that I do have access to the mainlog file and I can see the 
>> different between how things were previously processed and how they are now.
>> 
>> So now an entry looks like his (heavy search and replace by me here)
>> 
>> 2020-07-13 13:05:06 1jv4hG-0003kw-1L <= sender@senderdomain 
>> H=ltm-fwus209m-210m.senderdomain (PFFWRTP2PVAPP.fmr.com) [IP] P=esmtps 
>> X=TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256 CV=no S=199798 DKIM=senderdomain 
>> [email protected]
>> om T=“Sender - Company News and Research" from <sender@senderdomain> for 
>> me@mydomain
>> 2020-07-13 13:05:06 cwd=/var/spool/exim 3 args: /usr/sbin/exim -Mc 
>> 1jv4hG-0003kw-1L
>> 2020-07-13 13:05:06 1jv4hG-0003kw-1L => domain <me@mydomain> 
>> F=<sender@senderdomain> SRS=<[email protected]> 
>> R=localuser T=local_delivery S=199950
>> 2020-07-13 13:05:06 1jv4hG-0003kw-1L Completed
>> 
>> whereas before this looked like this
>> 
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:28 1jrlaV-0006k0-Ej <= sender@senderdomain 
>> H=ltm-fwus209m-210m.senderdomain (PFFWRTP3PVAPP.fmr.com) [IP] P=esmtps 
>> X=TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256 CV=no S=57226 DKIM=senderdomain 
>> id=202007041704.064H3CYB021613@PFFWRT
>> P3PVAPP.fmr.com T=“Sender - Company News and Research" from 
>> <sender@senderdomain> for [email protected]
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:28 cwd=/var/spool/exim 3 args: /usr/sbin/exim -Mc 
>> 1jrlaV-0006k0-Ej
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:29 H=localhost (localhost.localdomain) [127.0.0.1] 
>> incomplete transaction (QUIT) from <domain@host>
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:29 1jrlaV-0006k0-Ej => |nice -10 
>> $home/perlscripts/filter.pl -runsa (domain@host) <[email protected]> 
>> F=<sender@senderdomain> R=userforward T=address_pipe S=57285
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:29 1jrlaV-0006k0-Ej => 
>> /home/domain/Maildir/.INBOX.intray.backup/ (domain@host) <[email protected]> 
>> F=<sender@senderdomain> R=userforward T=address_directory S=57349
>> 2020-07-04 10:04:29 1jrlaV-0006k0-Ej Completed
>> 
>> When I test this at the command line I see
>> 
>> I have a .forward file and it eventually uses a pipe. (or at least it use to)
>> 
>> exim -bt -bV user@domain
>> 
>> Exim version 4.94 #2 built 25-Jun-2020 07:25:17
>> Copyright (c) University of Cambridge, 1995 - 2018
>> (c) The Exim Maintainers and contributors in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS file, 2007 - 
>> 2018
>> Berkeley DB: Berkeley DB 5.3.21: (May 11, 2012)
>> Support for: crypteq IPv6 Perl OpenSSL move_frozen_messages Content_Scanning 
>> DKIM DNSSEC Event OCSP PIPE_CONNECT PRDR SPF TCP_Fast_Open Experimental_SRS
>> Lookups (built-in): lsearch wildlsearch nwildlsearch iplsearch cdb dbm dbmjz 
>> dbmnz dnsdb
>> Authenticators: cram_md5 dovecot plaintext spa
>> Routers: accept dnslookup ipliteral manualroute queryprogram redirect
>> Transports: appendfile/maildir/mailstore/mbx autoreply lmtp pipe smtp
>> Malware: f-protd f-prot6d drweb aveserver fsecure kavdaemon sophie clamd 
>> mksd avast sock cmdline
>> Fixed never_users: 0
>> Configure owner: 0:0
>> Size of off_t: 8
>> user@host    [srs = SRS0=6E5clp=AY=host=user@domain]
>>   <— user@domain
>> router = localuser, transport = local_delivery
>> 
>> But is this something I can test at the command line?
>> 
>> Today my ISP introduce a new router earlier in the configuration where now 
>> the log entry in my .forward is at least executed as I can see entries added 
>> to the log file.
>> 
>> however, any pipe etc isn’t executed from that .forward file.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 13, 2020, at 3:14 AM, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 13/07/2020 01:14, Robert Nicholson via Exim-users wrote:
>>>> When I try a test message it doesn’t show userfowrard router.
>>> 
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> router = spamcheck_director, transport = spamcheck
>>> 
>>> Run the exim that does the routing with debug turned on.
>>> If this test message is smtp-fed, that'll be the daemon.
>>> If commandline, it's the one you start.
>>> 
>>> Grab stderr to file, for later perusal.
>>> 
>>> Feed in the test message.
>>> 
>>> Find the bit of debug output that shows routing being done.
>>> Look at the conditions on each router in the sequence getting
>>> evaluated.  You should discover why the router you expected
>>> was not hit, and the router you observe was hit.
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jeremy
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
>>> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
>>> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
>> 
> 

-- 
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

Reply via email to