Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-10 Thread Johannes Berg
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 13:11 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > > I don't use --daemon right now, it was crashing too much and losing > > mail. YMMV. > You have to limit the number of connections to 1. For some reason it > locks up if there are more than 1. Cute. > > Well, you control how long the

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-09 Thread Trever L. Adams
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:09 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 04:06 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > I don't use --daemon right now, it was crashing too much and losing > mail. YMMV. > You have to limit the number of connections to 1. For some reason it locks up if there are mor

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-09 Thread Johannes Berg
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 04:06 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > You mean dspam as --deamon? Yes, that was the recommendation in the > documentation stating it was highly recommended not to do the other > method. So, yes, my postfix file calls amavisd (for clamscan) which > feeds it back into postfix w

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:58 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > > > Usually dspam is able to either pick out the user from the signature > > > (uid in signature setting for dspam) or from the user it's running > > > under. I guess you're running some virtual user setup? > > > > > > > Hmm, with

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:48 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 03:39 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > > > @@ -152,9 +153,9 @@ > > close(fd); > > > > > +execl (DSPAM, DSPAM, "--user", user, "--source=error", "--stdout", > > class_arg, sign_arg, NULL); > > So wi

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
Hello, On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > transaction. Alternatively, enh_error can be set != 0 if call_dspam > returns an error which can happen when dspam returns an error code or > isn't present. > Yes, I found this. Which is where my patch came from. > Not sure

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
Please, find the patch below. The first change is spam, sorry. The rest is what it takes to make it work on my system. I have no tested it and it works beautifully. If anyone is using domain stuff successfully, then please help make this patch work. I have patched my dspam.c (in dspam) in accordanc

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 10:36 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi, > > > I understand. I have a few questions about your code. You do a case -3: > > on enh_error, yet there is NO such entry anywhere in the code. > > Heh. Cruft, I guess. The code has changed a lot over time. > Ok, good enough. > > A

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Trever L. Adams
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:43 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Hi Trever, > > Please copy the mailing list too. > I am sorry about that. > the cron job would have to iterate through all these files and call > dspam depending on the contents of the file. > > And then it all has to be atomic. > > I

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi, > > Usually dspam is able to either pick out the user from the signature > > (uid in signature setting for dspam) or from the user it's running > > under. I guess you're running some virtual user setup? > > > > Hmm, with my dspam patched or unpatched (to ignore the domain in the > case of pa

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Johannes Berg
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 03:39 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > @@ -152,9 +153,9 @@ > close(fd); > > +execl (DSPAM, DSPAM, "--user", user, "--source=error", "--stdout", > class_arg, sign_arg, NULL); So with what configuration is that actually necessary? I know that my configurati

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi, > > > Additionally, you check for 0 for a good condition, yet there is no > > > possibility of a changed enh_error value for 0 in call_dspam nor in the > > > function that calls it. > > > > Cruft too then, or just defensive coding maybe... > > > > Actually, if you consider that cruft, then

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-08 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi, > I understand. I have a few questions about your code. You do a case -3: > on enh_error, yet there is NO such entry anywhere in the code. Heh. Cruft, I guess. The code has changed a lot over time. > Additionally, you check for 0 for a good condition, yet there is no > possibility of a chang

Re: [Dovecot] dovecot-dspam-integration

2007-05-07 Thread Johannes Berg
Hi Trever, Please copy the mailing list too. On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 09:45 -0600, Trever L. Adams wrote: > 1) Why on line 350 of your code do you say "do (almost) everything"? > What is left out? Is it done still by dovcecot? I don't remember. You can probably find out by comparing the code. > 2