Matt Kettler writes:
> I recently have been fighting with making DCC work properly on a SA
> 3.1.x install.
>
> I have several high-volume mailing lists, that repeatedly hit DCC, so I
> did what every good DCC user should do. I added an "ok" for the envelope
> from to my whiteclnt file, make sure dccifd was using it, and reloaded
> dccifd.
>
> Next message from that list, still tagged by DCC.
>
> So I tried received, still no go.
>
> Looking at the code, the evelope_from will *never* work, because SA
> passes an empty string as the envelope sender in sub dccifd_lookup.
>
> # send the options and other parameters to the daemon
> $sock->print("header " . $opts . "\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write")
> && die; # options
> $sock->print($client . "\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write") && die; #
> client
> $sock->print($helo . "\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write") && die; #
> HELO value
> $sock->print("\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write") && die; # sender
> $sock->print("unknown\r\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write") && die; #
> recipients
> $sock->print("\n") || dbg("dcc: failed write") && die; # recipients
>
> However, the received one should work. in check_dcc, both the first
> external host and it's RDNS name are added to $client, so that should be
> getting to dccifd.
>
> What's going on? What magic do I need to make whiteclnt work properly in
> a SA 3.1.x environment when using dccifd?
er, I think it'd need to be implemented ;)
The whole idea of manually whitelisting all the DCC FPs is anathema to the
SpamAssassin model -- instead we try to just accept the FPs and adjust the
score to cope. Hence we've never added support for whiteclnt.
--j.
