> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Dickenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Aug 3, 2005, at 9:52 PM, Herb Martin wrote: > > >> The message I am seeing in /var/log/exim_main.log is: > >> spam acl condition: cannot parse spamd output > >> H=(mailservername) [IP] F=<address> temporarily rejected after DATA > > > > I am seeing a LOT of these but have been watching for them in the > > Panic Log as they are more isolated there. > > I've never seen this error on my systems. Define "a lot". > I'm curious if this problem is widespread.
40-50 a day (over 9 days) for low volume mail server. Another server was primary MX until yesterday, and now I am picking off much of the junk before it even gets to SpamD. Low volume == a few thousand incoming emails per day (counting spam) (I was not watching this closely until late last night, and the only reason I posted without firm evidence was in response to someone else suffering similar symptoms.) For those running Exim it is easy to grep the exim_panic.log for "spamd.*reset". My other server didn't have this info available as such. It was so prevalent when I first switch this Exim server to primary that my thinking was that it was my mistake, then a problem with having upgraded SpamD (I am running an aggressive pre-release), then a problem that might be Cygwin specific, or finally network related. I switched from IP sockets to Unix sockets in an attempt to avoid the problem -- and it seems better, but that was an impresion based on very slim evidence. > > Spam lookups (SpamAssassin) are supposedly cached and since > I have a > > LOT of "Spam check stanzas" in my Config so I am pretty sure that > > every message gets checked, but sometimes the unimportant > check MIGHT get skipped. > > They are cached. Exim will only interface with spamd once > per message, regardless of how many spam stanzas you have in > your ACL. I have 3 in mine. I understand that -- but is the reset/failure to complete the SpamD check also cached? That is, if stanza #1 spam check gets reset without finishing, will the stana #2 use the cached failure? (versus retry in stanza #2.) I believe not -- based on my logs -- and I hope not. So with 5 spamd stanzas in the exim config, it seems to only 'miss' once (maybe twice) per message before running the check... > > Best GUESS: It's a SpamD 'feature', but this is only an educated > > guess based on chasing it for only one full day. > > Feature? This error is a feature, or something else? I > think I missed something... It was lame irony on my part. Sorry for the confusion, in the mode of: "A feature is a bug describe by the marketing department." 'Artifact' might be a better choice of words until we pin this down. And please remember that I am guessing at SpamD based on some evidence but fairly week evidence. -- Herb
