thanks to shafer and apthorpe. reconciling their suggestions, I changed /etc/procmailrc to:
VERBOSE=YES LOGFILE=$HOME/procmail.log :0fw | /usr/bin/spamc -u $LOGNAME :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes #If the X-Spam header is Yes $HOME/mail/SPAM #send it to ~/mail/SPAM, which must exist. BUT: that passed through the tagged spam too! procmail.log contained the line: procmail: No match on "^X-Spam-Status: Yes #If the X-Spam header is Yes" When I took the comment "#If the X-Spam header is Yes" out of /etc/procmailrc, a match was logged and the spam redirected. Knock me over with a feather: you can't have comments in the wrong place in /etc/procmail. I guess I didn't include the comments when I first posted to the list, thinking I'd suppress extraneous detail. But I'm a monkey, not a total doofus. I got the recipe at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg124623.html and was doing a "monkey see, monkey do." cyggie s. From: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Original-Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05, USER_AGENT_PINE,X_OSIRU_OPEN_RELAY version=2.44 X-Spam-Level: On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Bob Apthorpe wrote: > I use: > > :0fw: spamc.lock > * !^X-spam-status:[ ]*Yes > * < 100000 > | /usr/bin/spamc -d localhost -p 783 -u apthorpe > > The lock file (the ': spamc.lock' part of ':0fw: spamc.lock') keeps you > from invoking more than one spamc at a time to keep load down. The -m option of spamd is a better way to accomplish this. Spamc is a tiny C program and doesn't use many resources while waiting for spamd. > avoids processing mail over 100000 lines long Actually, that's 100000 *bytes* (of both headers and body). Procmail does not count lines. If you actually want "more than 100000 lines" (of body) you need scoring: * 1^0 -100000 * 1^1 B ?? ^.*$ > Also, considering adding: > > DROPPRIVS=yes > > to your .procmailrc for safety This is a good suggestion. Without either that or "spamc -u $LOGNAME", spamc asks spamd to run as root (which it won't, it drops back to nobody) so the user's personal user_prefs will not be read. > and use > > VERBOSE=YES > LOGFILE=$HOME/procmail.log > > during testing to see what procmail is doing (vs what you think it's > doing.) That is the right answer to this question: On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > but I still can't figure out why mail tagged as spam isn't being > redirected. How can I trace this? ------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
