That is the same problem I have been getting... I can see in the code where it is supposed to send the username, but it never does. It seems to always use qmailq or qmaild....
-Ronan P.S. I'm new to QS so I may just be missing something... > At 10:34 AM 28/08/2003 -0500, wrote: > > I upgraded to 1.20rc2, and the problem still occurs. According to the > debug output of SA, it is not being called with the -u / username set. > The > Q-S logs confirm this. Am I missing something basic? Is there something > I've missed in the configuration to explicitly state it? Here's a > snippet: > > Q-S qmail-queue.log > > Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:28:51 -0400:29661: scanloop: > scanner=clamuko_scanner,plain_text_msg=1 > Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:28:51 -0400:29661: scanloop: > scanner=spamassassin,plain_text_msg=1 > Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:28:51 -0400:29661: SA: run /usr/bin/spamc -c -f < > /var/spool/qmailscan/working/new/domain.com1062088 > 13145529661 > Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:28:51 -0400:29661: spamassassin: finished scan of dir > "/var/spool/qmailscan/domain.com106208813145529 > 661" in 0.607974 secs > > > The SA debug output: > > debug: retrieving prefs for qmailq from SQL server > logmsg: Still running as root: user not specified with -u, not found, or > set to root. Fall back to nobody. > logmsg: checking message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for > qmailq:99. > > Thoughts? > > -- Steve > > >> > Isnt this what this in the CHANGES for rc1 is? >> >>My bad, I haven't been paying attention to the 1.1.20rc posts. >> >> > * SpamAssassin now sets the spamc "username" field to the recipient >> address. >> > This only happens if there is ONE recipient. If a spammer sends a spam >> to 20 >> > local users in one SMTP session, then no user-specific SA rules will >> > apply, but all the general SA rules still do of course. Note: As spamc >> > must be passed the recipient address on the commandline, Q-S has to >> strip >> > back the e-mail address to shell-friendly chars - this should be fine >> for >> > 99.9% of your e-mail addresses, but may mean that the more odd >> addresses won't >> > be able to access their user-specific SA options. The address is also >> lowercased >> > before being passed to spamc. Note that all this has no effect on the >> recipient >> > address of the e-mail - just the address used for "spamc -u ..." >> >>I suppose I should just go get the RC and play with it. Does it pass >> only >>the username part of the email to spamc? I have virtual users with >>vmailmgr, my spamc usernames are full email addresses, so I use spamc -u >>[EMAIL PROTECTED], not spamc -u joe. It was an easy mod to the perl code >>to accomplish this so I'm not too concerned. >> >>Thx, >> >>Josh >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >>Welcome to geek heaven. >>http://thinkgeek.com/sf >>_______________________________________________ >>Qmail-scanner-general mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Qmail-scanner-general mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Qmail-scanner-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
