Re: surbl not reporting on any incoming email

[Thomas Bolioli]

Ok. I created copies of the /etc/resolv.conf file in the user's home dirs and made sure the copies were owned by those users and no go. It is still not executing network tests for any user other than root. Can anybody confirm they are getting network tests performed on a 3.0.0 setup with procmail executing /usr/bin/spamassassin (not a spamc/spamd setup)? I know I have all the correct settings as other emails in this thread can show. Tom Thomas Bolioli wrote: I had not upgraded from a 2.6x install with Spam Cop. It was a totally stock install and it is still 3.0.0. I have since discovered that when I run spamassassin as any user except root, the network tests do not work. When I run it as root, all the network tests work just fine. I have tried to run network based things as other users before and there does not appear to be any restrictions on network access for those users. I checked /etc/resolve.conf and it is read only to the world and is configured properly. Something may be wrong with Net::DNS::Resolver and it is not seeing the /etc/resolve.conf file when run as other users. This morning's chore is to create links to ~/.resolve.conf for a few users and get it owned by them and see what happens. Will advise. Tom Jeff Chan wrote: On Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 2:25:52 PM, Thomas Bolioli wrote: Hence my problem. From my local.cf which is not overridden anywhere skip_rbl_checks 0 dns_available yes From etc/procmailrc SPAMC="/usr/bin/spamassassin" :0f |$SPAMC but the surbl checks only occur when I do spamassassin -t < file_w_msg and not when procmail does the forwarding. I am at a loss. This has never worked since I install 10.1 (SA 3.0.0). SA 2.63/2.64 used a separate patch called SpamCopURI, and SA 3.x uses the built in program urirhssub for SURBL lookups. If you had SpamCopURI before, did you get rid of the it and the rules for it, as you should for 3.X? (3.X versions have SURBL rules set up by default). Did you perhaps upgrade from 3.0.0 to later versions? If so, did you remember to change the rule type from "header" to "body" as mentioned at: http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#body Jeff C.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature