Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Oct 28, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Noel Jones wrote: On 10/28/2015 6:41 AM, Al Zick wrote: Hi, I really hope there is a solution. I have been using postfix and dspam. However, /var became full. After looking into the problem, I found that /var/dspam/data was where all the disk space was being use

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/28/2015 6:41 AM, Al Zick wrote: > Hi, > > I really hope there is a solution. > > I have been using postfix and dspam. However, /var became full. > After looking into the problem, I found that /var/dspam/data was > where all the disk space was being used. After deleting > /var/dspam/data /va

Re: DSpam and Postfix

--On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:59 AM -0400 Phil Stracchino wrote: But that was in 2011. I don't think DSpam has updated since *before* 2011. It is well known that DSPAM is a dead project. See . --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/14/15 06:17, Wietse Venema wrote: > Tom Hendrikx: >> The original message as received by postfix has no problems. You could >> try to find the postfix logs for the incoming message by looking at the >> message id in the dspam quarantine, but the bug here is in dspam. > > Perhaps related to t

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/14/15 04:25, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > On 13-10-15 18:47, Phil Stracchino wrote: >> On 10/13/15 12:40, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> Otherwise, how might these invalid recipients be entering your queue? >> >> A good question. It appears to be only occurring with messages that are >> quarantined by

Re: DSpam and Postfix

Tom Hendrikx: > >> Otherwise, how might these invalid recipients be entering your queue? > > > > A good question. It appears to be only occurring with messages that are > > quarantined by DSpam and then subsequently redelivered. > > > > > > I've seen this issue before: dspam sends a garbled RC

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 13-10-15 18:47, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 10/13/15 12:40, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> Keep in mind that wildcard virtual(5) aliases can also break >> recipient validation. Any "@domain" keys in the tables for alias_maps >> or virtual_alias_maps? > > Nope, none. There are @domain keys in rel

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 14:26, Noel Jones wrote: > On 10/13/2015 10:43 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote: >> Of *course*, it figures that right now there are no false positives in >> my quarantine that I can test with, only valid spam hits that I don't >> want to retrain as FPs... so I can't retest until a new FP com

Re: DSpam and Postfix

Phil Stracchino: > On 10/13/15 12:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > > The local(8) delivery agent is processing a message with an invalid > > (non-printable) recipient. > > Could it be the case that the recipient is unprintable because it was > originally processed and quarantined by dspam when sm

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/2015 10:43 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 10/13/15 11:29, Phil Stracchino wrote: >> On 10/13/15 11:10, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> k...@rice.edu: Hi Phil, You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 12:40, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > Keep in mind that wildcard virtual(5) aliases can also break > recipient validation. Any "@domain" keys in the tables for alias_maps > or virtual_alias_maps? Nope, none. There are @domain keys in relay-recipients, but they are all for domains I do not

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:29:54PM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > > Yes, but the question is why your MTA would have accepted such a > > recipient. Recipient validation would normally reject non-existent > > users whether UTF-8 or ASCII. Have you disabled recipient validation, > > or created a

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 12:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:07:44PM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > >> On 10/13/15 12:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> >>> The local(8) delivery agent is processing a message with an invalid >>> (non-printable) recipient. >> >> Could it be the case that the

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:07:44PM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 10/13/15 12:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > > The local(8) delivery agent is processing a message with an invalid > > (non-printable) recipient. > > Could it be the case that the recipient is unprintable because it was > orig

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 12:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > The local(8) delivery agent is processing a message with an invalid > (non-printable) recipient. Could it be the case that the recipient is unprintable because it was originally processed and quarantined by dspam when smtputf8 was active? -- Phil

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:55:16AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > > That release also has no smtputf8 support, so it is difficult to > > see why that might be better than 3.0.x with smtputf8 disabled. > > You make a good, but mystifying, point if smtputf8 was not > supported in 2.11, and re

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:51:50AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > Oct 3 14:48:23 epsilon3 postfix/smtpd[7639]: connect from > localhost[127.0.0.1] > Oct 3 14:48:23 epsilon3 dspam[7638]: Got error 500 in response to RCPT > TO: 500 5.5.2 Error: bad UTF-8 syntax^M > Oct 3 14:48:23 epsilon3 postfi

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 11:33, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:29:03AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: >> I'll try downgrading the main mail server to 2.x and see if that works. > > That release also has no smtputf8 support, so it is difficult to > see why that might be better than 3.0.x wit

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 11:34, Wietse Venema wrote: > Phil Stracchino: >> On 10/13/15 11:10, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> k...@rice.edu: Hi Phil, You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can you try downgrading to v2.x

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 11:29, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 10/13/15 11:10, Wietse Venema wrote: >> k...@rice.edu: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a >>> problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can you try downgrading to >>> v2.x and see if you still ha

Re: DSpam and Postfix

Phil Stracchino: > On 10/13/15 11:10, Wietse Venema wrote: > > k...@rice.edu: > >> Hi Phil, > >> > >> You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a > >> problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can you try downgrading to > >> v2.x and see if you still have the problem. We

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:29:03AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > I already tried that, but when I disabled smtputf8, I lost the ability > to retrain misses. It appears smtputf8 is a requirement. You must be mistaken. The only plausible issue is smtputf8 messages already in the queue, I don't

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On 10/13/15 11:10, Wietse Venema wrote: > k...@rice.edu: >> Hi Phil, >> >> You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a >> problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can you try downgrading to >> v2.x and see if you still have the problem. We are using 2.x here without >> a

Re: DSpam and Postfix

k...@rice.edu: > Hi Phil, > > You are running postfix v3 and it appears that its UTF-8 support has a > problem with how DSPAM delivers messages. Can you try downgrading to > v2.x and see if you still have the problem. We are using 2.x here without > an issue. Or you could just set smtputf8_enabl

Re: DSpam and Postfix

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:52AM -0400, Phil Stracchino wrote: > I use DSpam with Postfix, and it works well ... except that some time > back, redelivery of false positives stopped working. I'm not precisely > certain when it stopped working. > > This is the error that is logged on a redelive