>> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Received: (qmail 70387 invoked by uid 85); 12 Dec 2003 09:57:09 -0000 >> Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by pop.lightspeed.ca by uid 82 with >> qmail-scanner-1.20 >> (. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:1(206.12.82.140):. >> >> And for comparison, here's the headers for one of the messages that >> trapped spamd properly: >> >> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Received: (qmail 5289 invoked by uid 85); 12 Dec 2003 16:31:17 -0000 >> Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by pop.lightspeed.ca by uid 82 with >> qmail-scanner-1.20 >> (. spamassassin: 2.60. Clear:RC:0(68.58.99.166):SA:0(2.6/6.0):. >> Processed in 0.440182 secs); 12 Dec 2003 16:31:17 -0000 > > Notice the Clear:RC:1(206.12.82.140): & > Clear:RC:0(68.58.99.166):SA:0(2.6/6.0): parts. The RC:0 & RC:1 is the > RELAYCLIENT value, which means that those two emails were handled > differently because of your configuration. Perhaps you should check your > /etc/tcp.smtp settings to ensure that it's set the way you want it. It > looks like the first message is a more trusted one, according to your > setup, and shows no SA:0(2.6/6.0) like the second.
I just found the problem: qmail-scanner is eschewing the use of spamassassin on messages with attachments, since my virus scanner (f-prot) is supposed to check them, not spamassassin. There weren't any configure options that turned this "feature" on... is there something in the site-specific settings I'm missing? ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Qmail-scanner-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
