Personally for me, it's an interesting situation: DSPAM works, but tags only local mail; other mail is delivered as if there's no content filter at all. Maybe something is wrong with my "master.cf" file?
If anyone here used Postfix with DSPAM, please take a look at my Postfix configs, I'm stuck in this situation and don't know what troubleshooting steps to take further. Thanks in advance! 2015-01-29 11:03 GMT+04:00 Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов <gasymov...@vfmgiu.ru>: > I read the file "postfix.txt" in shared docs of DSPAM, but I can't make > DSPAM insert any headers into mails if I only specify it as a content > filter under "smtp" in "master.cf", and not under "smtps". Probably my > configuration files (with stripped comments) will explain everything better: > > dspam.conf: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8eda6c0df06a/dspam.conf.txt > master.cf: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/7a06ab781307/master.cf.txt > main.cf: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2dd1062220e2/main.cf.txt > > For simplicity of my first setup, I installed DSPAM on the same machine as > Postfix, and configured it to use libhash_drv.so, not other DB drivers. > Software versions are the latest DSPAM and Postfix installed on FreeBSD > 10.0. I didn't change too many defaults in configs, but maybe I've > misconfigured something so obvious that any experienced user will be able > to point it out right away. > > Please help me to find the error, any help is highly appreciated! > > 2015-01-28 23:05 GMT+04:00 Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов <gasymov...@vfmgiu.ru>: > >> "...on the dspam list are for sure more people using dspam as here" - >> probably correct. >> That's why I started conversation with a question: "Did anyone had this >> type of misconfiguration before?" If nobody on this list ever used DSPAM, >> then there's no point to bother list users with questions about Postfix - >> DSPAM interaction. >> >> 2015-01-28 22:50 GMT+04:00 k...@rice.edu <k...@rice.edu>: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:44:27PM +0400, Орхан Ибад-оглы Гасымов wrote: >>> > Thanks for your reply. >>> > >>> > 2. "...dspam is abandonware" - thanks for an interesting piece of >>> > information. >>> > >>> >>> This statement is unsupported. It is not being developed agressively >>> which seems to provoke this person. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ken >>> >> >> >
