Bart,
Thank you! This is of great value to me and I really appreciat the time you
took to review and comment!
Regards,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
> > It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd
> > c
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
> It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd connection
> after 3 retries, it will not produce a non-zero exit code. Is it my
> recipe or spamc?
It's spamc. From the manual page:
-f Cause spamc to safe-failover if it can't conn
Hi Bart,
Thanks for the reply!
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Schaefer
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
>
> > > > :0fw
> > > > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > > > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> > > >
> > > > SCANNED=$?
> > > >
> > > > :0 Efw
> > > > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > > > | spamassa
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> I'm afraid I don't have a test server - all my work is
> production environment development, which keeps life
> interesting, and makes me very careful about any changes.
It appears that even though spamc aborts the attempted spamd connectio
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote:
> > > :0fw
> > > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> > >
> > > SCANNED=$?
> > >
> > > :0 Efw
> > > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > > | spamassassin -a
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The E causes the second
> > to always be skipped unl
On 09/02/03 01:19 PM, Karl Larsen sat at the `puter and typed:
>
>
>
> You both should just go to the FAQ on the SpamAssassin web and
> use what's there. Here is my .procmailrc and it's been working fine:
Thanks for the input, but I think you're missing the whole point of
this part of t
On 09/02/03 07:52 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
>
>
> > :0
> > * !^Subject:.*Satalk
> > {
> >:0fw: spamassassin.lock
> >* < 256000
> >| spamc
> >
> >SCANNED=$?
> >
> >:0fw: spamassassin.lock
> >* ! SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> >* < 256000
> >| spamassassin
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> > :0fw
> > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> >
> > SCANNED=$?
> >
> > :0 Efw
> > * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> > | spamassassin -a
>
> I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The E causes the second
> to always be skipped unless the fir
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> On 09/01/03 04:41 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> > Hi Louis,
> >
> > Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
> > time.
>
> Ditto . . .
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
On 09/01/03 04:41 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Louis,
>
> Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
> time.
Ditto . . .
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
> > After rereading a lot of procmail docs, I've found that th
Hi Louis,
Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
time.
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> After rereading a lot of procmail docs, I've found that the exitcode
> is saved when the 'w' flag is used in the procmail recipe as follows:
I was mo
On 08/29/03 09:21 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hey Louis,
>
> Please forgive this reply. Your messages keep getting wrapped in a
> text file as it comes through with an unknown content-type:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
Sorry about that. Thanks for givi
Hey Louis,
Please forgive this reply. Your messages keep getting wrapped in a text
file as it comes through with an unknown content-type:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
I did read the message even though it is not included here.
So if I understand correctly, what you really wan
On 08/29/03 01:37 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Louis,
>
> > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
> > Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this
> > working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one
> > question though.
>
> Join the party!
:-)
> > Rega
Hi Louis,
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis LeBlanc
> Sorry for barging in on this thread, but I'm trying to get this
> working myself right now (spamd/spamc with procmail). I have one
> question though.
Join the party!
> Regarding spamc, if the -f flag us used and it can't connect
On 08/28/03 11:08 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is
> similar but my experience with the script is limited.
>
> I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best.
>
> http://www.securitysage.com/guide
First, I use Procmail rather than the spamfilter script. The concept is
similar but my experience with the script is limited.
I had found a link to SecuritySage that might help you best.
http://www.securitysage.com/guides/postfix_uce_sa.html
I will continue to help if you think it would be ben
Hi Jason,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason McCormick
I looked at your config. It looks right. I just have a couple of mundane
questions.
1) Why do you think this is not working? Is SA not even marking the
message?
2) Is spamd running? (netstat -l | grep 783)
3) Do you see anything i
On Thursday 28 August 2003 05:12 pm, Larry Gilson wrote:
> > 1) spamd must run as root, otherwise it can't fork and drop
> > priviledges to the user in question. Among other things,
> > this lets it create the ~/.spamassassin directory if it
> > doesn't exist. You *may* be able to get away with r
Larry Gilson wrote:
> I could be wrong about this but I do not believe that spamc needs to be run
> with the -u parameter. The reason is that the master.cf file should be
> configured to pipe the message to filter script running as user filter.
Dunno. I don't speak postfix.
Personally, I'd us
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Deugau
> In order to get spamd/spamc to use per-user prefs in
> ~/.spamassassin, you have two requirements:
>
> 1) spamd must run as root, otherwise it can't fork and drop
> priviledges to the user in question. Among other things,
> this lets it cre
Jason McCormick wrote:
> I just upgraded to 2.55 and followed the directions for changing
> local.cf (allow_user_rules 1) to allow the user_prefs file to be read
> from ~/.spamassassin however I'm still not seeing spamd reading this
> file. I just installed spamc to run as a filter in postfix an
Hi all,
I just upgraded to 2.55 and followed the directions for changing
local.cf (allow_user_rules 1) to allow the user_prefs file to be read
from ~/.spamassassin however I'm still not seeing spamd reading this
file. I just installed spamc to run as a filter in postfix and call
spamd which
23 matches
Mail list logo
