Following up on this...it turns out that the problem of email being
rejected with a threshold of 0 was NOT the result of a bug in SA. but an
issue (I'd call it a bug, but it looks like it was intentional) with
qmail-scanner 1.15. There's a quick patch that fixes it in the email
from the QS list below (thanks to Chris Hine):
-------------------------------------------
Basically, as of QS 1.15 (I think) Jason decided he wasn't going to
trust the return value from spamassassin, as there have been a number
of versions that don't work properly, so QS checks the values and marks
the mail as spam itself.
Unfortunately the test that is used is score >= threshold, which is true
if they are both zero, which is the default case, as they both get set to
zero if there are any problems, or if the scanning is skipped because the
file is too big.
I have attached the patch that I use that specifically checks for score
and threshold = 0. This should only cause a problem if you have set your
threshold to 0.
The relevant line is below.
- if ($sa_max > $sa_score) {
+ if (($sa_max > $sa_score) || ($sa_max == 0 && $sa_score == 0)) {
Hope this helps.
Chris Hine
-----------------
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:51:30PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > whitelisting in the local.cf file worked only after killing and restarting
> > spamd, even though changes to the hits threshold in the same config file
> > work after killing and restarting qmail-send.
> >
> > I must be doing something seriously wrong here:
> >
> > If spamd is killed, all email is rejected as spam with a threshold of 0.
> > the same thing happens when certain types of attachments are sent. It
> > looks like this:
> >
> > X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=0 required=0
> >
> > I can only speculate that this is something to do with qmail-scanner
> > seeing certain attachment methods (it's not the suffixes that I have
> > excluded in qmail-scanner that are the problem) and causing it to not run
> > spamc or spamd correctly...
> >
> > I need more Tums!
>
> I feel like I'm repeating my self now.
>
> There's a bug in spamd in 2.43 that occurrs when spamc -c is used. You
> can find a patch in the bugzilla, somewhere, or in the CVS logs.
>
> --
> Duncan Findlay
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:
> With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
> Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
> http://hpc.devchannel.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
>
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am
=========================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel
http://hpc.devchannel.org/
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
