Hello Matt, turns out that the script supplied by the designers of the whole mess is, well, suboptimal. I kicked it entirely and used a single command line to run a per-recipient checking.
Just for info: whenever spamc can't find the $recipient or is lacking a '-u', it falls back to the process owner. If there are no userprefs defined for that recipient, the $GLOBAL settings are applied. Thanks for the input! Best regards, sven03 Mit freundlichen Gruessen i. A. Sven Juergensen -- Fachbereich Informationstechnologie KielNET GmbH Gesellschaft fuer Kommunikation Preusserstr. 1-9, 24105 Kiel Telefon : 0431 / 2219-053 Telefax : 0431 / 2219-005 E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.kielnet.de AS# 25295 Key fingerprint: 65B6 90FC 010A 39CE DCA5 336D 9C45 3B7A B02D E132 "221 2.7.0 Error: I can break rules, too. Goodbye." Geschaeftsfuehrer Eberhard Schmidt HRB 4499 (Amtsgericht Kiel) Matt Kettler wrote: > Sven Juergensen (KielNET) wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> i was posting this subject a while >> ago and recently had some time to >> look into it some more. >> >> Apparently, whenever $SOMETHING isn't >> part of the envelope and/or body, >> spamassassin falls back to the user >> which is owning the process. > Spamassassin *NEVER* examines the envelope or body to determine what > user to run as. *NEVER*. > > It *ALWAYS* runs as the user that invoked it, or whatever user it was > explicitly told to run as (ie: via spamc's -u parameter). > > It's possible that whatever tool you're using invokes SA using some part > of said envelope or body to pass to -u, but but you didn't specify > what's calling SA, so... >> If that >> user isn't listed in the SQL-Backend it >> queries against, spamassassin just uses >> the global setting which, in my case, >> does nothing at all. > nothing at all? That seems rather odd. Even with no user preferences at > all, SA should run with fairly "normal" defaults. (ie: score threshold > of 5.0, etc) >> Does anyone of you reckon what causes >> spamassassin to score on the process >> owner? > As above, nothing. SA does what it's told, and if it's not told, it uses > the calling userid. >> As stated, I *believe* it has >> something to do with something missing, >> but I have yet to recreate this. > Can you tell us more about your setup? Are you calling spamc from > procmail? using a milter? ec. >
