On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 16:33 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2014 00:51:38 +0200 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> Ian> I mostly get the rest of your answer, but this is incorrect. Same
> Ian> user, I'm 100% sure. Unless you count spamd checking on my behalf
> Ian> as different user - do you?
> There is no dedicated spamd user - spamd runs as root:
Ah, my bad, I mis-interpreted your previous post.
> According to the docs, this means spamd _does_ change identity to the
> originator when processing each spamc request.
Yeah.
Back to the original issue of lint check not warning, and the issue
being reported in spamd log instead.
I stand corrected. *sigh* Turns out lint check is actually doing more
than expected, while at the same time failing to correctly validate the
configuration.
$ echo "no_such_option 1" >> .spamassassin/user_prefs
$ echo "loadplugin foo" >> .spamassassin/user_prefs
$ spamassassin --lint
warn: config: failed to parse line, skipping, in
"/home/kb/.spamassassin/user_prefs": no_such_option 1
warn: plugin: failed to parse plugin (from @INC): Can't locate foo.pm in @INC
Complaining about the bad option is expected. Complaining about not
finding the plugin's Perl module is NOT expected. Lint check should have
complained about missing privilege for that option.
$ echo "loadplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::AutoLearnThreshold" >>
.spamassassin/user_prefs
$ spamassassin --lint && echo CLEAN
CLEAN
Look ma, no warning!
Yup, that plugin exists alright. That setting should not have passed
lint check though, since it simply is not allowed in there.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
