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
> >
> > > 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 moving in this very same direction.
>
> Great minds . . .
>
> > > :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.
> >
> > I follow you to the end. However, I found references by Philip Guenther
> > (Procmail list maintainer) to suggest the following:
> >
> >
> > :0 w
> > * ? progname
> > | do this if exitcode == 0
> >
> > # save the return code in a testable variable
> > ret = $?
> >
> > # Need the 'E' here as ret will contain the return code of
> > # the action instead of 'progname' if 'progname' succeeded.
> > :0 E
> > * ret ?? ^^1^^
> > | do this if exitcode == 1
> >
> > :0 E
> > * ret ?? ^^2^^
> > | do this if exitcode == 2
> >
> > :0 E
> > | otherwise, do this
> >
> >
> > If we use that strategy, we might be able to experiment with code as
> > follows:
> >
> > :0fw
> > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > | spamc -u "$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 first didn't execute - like for mail to the SA
> list.
>
> > I was wondering why we could not do the following:
> >
> > :0
> > * !^Subject:.*Satalk
> > {
> > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > * < 256000
> > | spamc
> >
> > :0 efw: spamassassin.lock
> > * < 256000
> > | spamassassin -a
> > }
> >
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:
VERBOSE=off
SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail
# SpamAssassin sample procmailrc
#
# Pipe the mail through spamassassin (replace 'spamassassin' with 'spamc'
# if you use the spamc/spamd combination)
#
# The condition line ensures that only messages smaller than 250 kB
# (250 * 1024 = 256000 bytes) are processed by SpamAssassin. Most spam
# isn't bigger than a few k and working with big messages can bring
# SpamAssassin to its knees.
#
# The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
# at 1 time, to keep the load down.
#
:0fw: spamc.lock
* < 256000
| spamc
# Mails with a score of 15 or higher are almost certainly spam (with 0.05%
# false positives according to rules/STATISTICS.txt). Let's put them in a
# different mbox. (This one is optional.)
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
almost-certainly-spam
# All mail tagged as spam (eg. with a score higher than the set threshold)
# is moved to "probably-spam".
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
probably-spam
# Work around procmail bug: any output on stderr will cause the "F" in
"From"
# to be dropped. This will re-add it.
:0
* ^^rom[ ]
{
LOG="*** Dropped F off From_ header! Fixing up. "
:0 fhw
| sed -e '1s/^/F/'
}
:0:
*^From:.*<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
/dev/null
:0:
*^Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/home/karl/mail/mine
> > Shouldn't the e mean execute if the previous recipe's condition(s)
> > matched but there was an error in the action? What do you think?
>
> I think you're right with that one - using the lowercase 'e', but I'm
> not sure how an error is defined there. The procmailrc manpage has
> the following:
>
> e This recipe only executes if the immediately preceding recipe
> failed (i.e., the action line was attempted, but resulted in an
> error).
>
> I'd probably go with the following to start off:
>
> :0
> * !^Subject:.*Satalk
> {
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamc
>
> SCANNED=$?
>
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> * ! SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> * < 256000
> | spamassassin -a
> }
>
> > By the way, the SA FAQ suggests using a lock. I don't know if spamc
> > benefits from the lock but I use it anyway.
As you see I'm using the lock because I wasen't told not
to...:-)
> > # The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
> > # at 1 time, to keep the load down.
> > #
> > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > * < 256000
> > | spamassassin
>
> Probably a good idea. Even if this is unnecessary, it will probably
> reduce the load when dozens of messages come in at once.
>
> Lou
>
--
- Karl Larsen k5di Las Cruces,NM Az ScQRPions -
-------------------------------------------------------
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
