Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Justin Mason
Charlie Watts said: > There already is a command-line flag. SA knows if it is doing final > delivery or not. > Basically it should be added, if it doesn't exist, but only when > spamassassin is in "delivery mode". > Hrm. And it should certainly not be modified by spamc. Only spamassassin > needs

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Jeremy Zawodny
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:30:16PM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Justin Mason wrote: > > > I tried that, but it caused bugs for many people :( adding one at > > all times, unless there's one there, seemed to work better. It > > really is a tricky issue though... maybe we sho

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Charlie Watts
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Justin Mason wrote: > Craig Hughes said: > > > I think SA's policy should be "maintain one if it's there > > when passed in, but don't add or delete one". > > I tried that, but it caused bugs for many people :( adding one at all > times, unless there's one there, seemed to w

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Craig Hughes
Yeah, I hadn't updated the system-wide config in a few weeks, and have been mostly relying on visual inspection of spamc results, rather than actually attempting delivery from development versions' output.  I guess maybe I'll just switch to the recommended formail -i 'From ' rule instead of my

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Justin Mason
Craig Hughes said: > I think SA's policy should be "maintain one if it's there > when passed in, but don't add or delete one". I tried that, but it caused bugs for many people :( adding one at all times, unless there's one there, seemed to work better. It really is a tricky issue though... m

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Joerg Jaspert
Craig Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > processes, which causes my delivery agent to fall over. I've > temporarily fixed this on my end by having procmail run a 'tail +2' > after spamc, but I think it's a problem in NoMailAudit.pm -- is there a > reason SA's adding this header if there isn't

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Craig Hughes
On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 11:53, Theo Van Dinter wrote: Procmail is expecting delivery to a Berkeley-format mail spool, which requires the "^From " header as a seperator, so it does as is expected. Only if procmail is in "explicit delivery mode", which it's not for me.  I have procmail us

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Taral
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:53:18PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:42:07PM -0600, Taral wrote: > > Not on maildirs or MH boxes. And not if you're using procmail, last I > > checked. > > From the procmail man page: > >When in explicit delivery mode, procmail w

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Phydeaux
At 01:42 PM 1/15/2002 -0600, Taral wrote: >Not on maildirs or MH boxes. And not if you're using procmail, last I >checked. As far as procmail goes, it just uses what was passed to it. I use procmail as my local delivery agent with sendmail and my sendmail daemon spits out a 'From ' line. If that

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 01:42:07PM -0600, Taral wrote: > Not on maildirs or MH boxes. And not if you're using procmail, last I > checked. From the procmail man page: When in explicit delivery mode, procmail will generate a leading `From ' line if none is present. If one is al

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Craig Hughes
Cyrus IMAP.  I think SA's policy should be "maintain one if it's there when passed in, but don't add or delete one". C On Tue, 2002-01-15 at 11:28, Phydeaux wrote: At 11:10 AM 1/15/2002 -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: >As part of implementing CHECK yesterday, I updated my systemwide SA in

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Taral
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:28:19PM -0500, Phydeaux wrote: > Such 'From ' lines are required in order to maintain proper mailbox format files. > You may recall that a few weeks ago I discovered that they appeared to be > removed by SA. I'm using a CVS tarball from a few days ago and SA was > proper

Re: [SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Phydeaux
At 11:10 AM 1/15/2002 -0800, Craig Hughes wrote: >As part of implementing CHECK yesterday, I updated my systemwide SA installation and >just noticed this morning that mail delivery broke. It seems SA started adding 'From >' lines to the tops of all messages it processes, which causes my deliver

[SAtalk] From xxx@yyy.zzz header added

2002-01-15 Thread Craig Hughes
As part of implementing CHECK yesterday, I updated my systemwide SA installation and just noticed this morning that mail delivery broke.  It seems SA started adding 'From ' lines to the tops of all messages it processes, which causes my delivery agent to fall over.  I've temporarily fixed this