On 28.05.13 17:30, Simon Loewenthal wrote:
I looked at scoring for an email on an SA installation and noticed
differences between hand scanning with spamc and scanning with spamd. My
manually scanned email hit CLAMAV sane security, (ignore Bayes because
the user had Bayes process this and then asked me about this), whilst
this spamd delivered message did not hit CLAMAV_SANE The local.cf had a
timeout of 250 seconds (default is 300). The clamav logs did not record
any connection from SA during the spamd scan, yet did record a
connection from spamc when I manually scanned the message so I think
spamd skipped clamav scans.
The only reason why spamc/spamd could give different results than
spamassassin is that they scan as different user, otherwise they should use
just the same configs.
Hand scanned with # cat $MESSAGEFILE | spamc -R -u spamd
Here you instruct spamc to scan message as user spamd which means the
spamd's user preferences.
Results when scanned by spamd via postfix:
Tue May 28 14:17:55 2013 [20590] info: spamd: result: . 5 -
BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_MESSAGE,JOB_OFFERS_PHASES,MTX_FAIL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_REMOTE_IMAGE
scantime=18.9,size=145848,user=exam...@example.co.uk,uid=5002,required_score=6.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=38517,mid=<51a49fdb.908...@hsbc.co.uk>,bayes=0.500979,autolearn=no,shortcircuit=no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
here postfix instructs spamd to scan as user "exam...@example.co.uk"
what happens when you pass arguments "-u exam...@example.co.uk" to spamc,
instead of "-u spamd" ?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity...
