On the off chance that your decision to turn off greylisting was
related to Matus Uhlar's message that concludes with:
"if you run SA, there's no point in running greylisting anymore."
That could be interpreted to read "if you run SA at all, there's no
need for greylisting at all", but I don't think that's what he meant.
I think the correct interpretation (at least the one that makes sense
to me) is "during processing of mail, it makes no sense to run
greylisting after SA does its thing".
I would generalize that even more to say that greylisting should come
before any other content-based filtering (virus scanners, defanging,
etc.).
On the other hand, you may have disabled greylisting because you're
tired of futzing with it and just want your mail to work right again,
in which case, nevermind.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to “normal”
On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole
<sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote:
strange... how do you run spamassassin from postfix?
In master.cf like everyone else…
Um, not so much...
smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
-o content_filter=spamassassin
[...]
spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
user=spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -f -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender}
${recipient}
FWIW, that's probably roughly the 5th most common way to integrate Postfix and
SpamAssassin. I'd guess that amavisd-new as a before-queue filter is 1st, followed by
amavisd-new as an after-queue filter, spamass-milter, and MIMEDefang (also a milter).
There are pros and cons for every approach but a 'pipe' content_filter using spamc's '-e'
option probably has the fewest "pros" and has the problems described at
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix. Also, you probably want
'flags=Rq' in the pipe arguments and there is no '-f' argument documented for spamc, so
that should probably go unless you know something the spamc man page doesn't...
A possible cause of your trouble could be spamc not knowing the correct way to
talk to spamd. In that case, the '-e' option causes spamc to bypass spamd and
just pipe its input to the given command, exiting with a successful return code
unless that command fails. This seems to match what you're describing.
--
Public key #7BBC68D9 at | Shane Williams
http://pgp.mit.edu/ | System Admin - UT CompSci
=----------------------------------+-------------------------------
All syllogisms contain three lines | sha...@shanew.net
Therefore this is not a syllogism | www.ischool.utexas.edu/~shanew
