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 giving me the heads up. I've checked the charset setting in my mutt config, and it said us-ascii, but something must be munging it somewhere. I've changed it to iso-8859-1, and hopefully that will do the trick - if it doesn't, please yell at me again! > I did read the message even though it is not included here. > > So if I understand correctly, what you really want to know is how to > recover if spamd is not functioning/responding. Is this correct? > And this lead you to consider the -f option. Is this correct also? > Furthermore, you are concerned with using any of the header fields > as a message could come through matching your test which would yield > a false positive test. Is that correct too? Yes! However, I've found the fine print in the SA manpages that specifies that the -f flag is essentially a dead switch, since you can't turn the recover behavior off anyway, but it's kept there for backward compatibility, so the exit status is there anyway, it just has to be caught. Just to clarify the header issue, say I were to check for the X-Spam-Status header, or one of the other headers that SA always adds. If that header were pre-added to the message, the failover would be skipped, even if spamd couldn't be contacted. What I'd like to do is catch the exit status from spamc, and if it failed to tag the message either way, I could pipe it through spamassassin as a backup. 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: :0fw * !^Subject:.*SAtalk | spamc -u "$LOGNAME" Also, the $? variable should hold that exitcode, so following that recipe with SCANNED=$? *should* (meaning untested so far :) cause the following recipe to work only if spamc failed to connect to spamd: :0fw * ? test ! $SCANNED | spamassassin -a That assumes I've gotten the syntax of this last recipe correct - particularly the second line. > Sorry for all the questions but I am just trying to keep my > understanding straight. Not at all. I appreciate the extra hassle you're going through to help! I don't know if I've got this right, but if you have any ideas, I'd appreciate a pointer. Either way, I'll probably take this back up Tuesday and test this out. Thanks again for the help. Lou -- Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ prairies, n.: Vast plains covered by treeless forests. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
