[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: -r option

From: Jeff Powell
Subject: RE: -r option
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:34:18 -0800

Interesting... I am also using SpamAssassin 2.5.  I did not try using
the -r option until after I upgraded to it.

Does the -r option merely pass a flag to SpamAssassin, or does it do
something internal to the milter?  Perhaps the option has changed in SA.
I'll have to review the documentation.  I know several options are
different in 2.50, I had to make some changes when I upgraded.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Shadwick [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:43 PM
To: Dan Nelson
Cc: Jeff Powell; address@hidden
Subject: Re: -r option

This is failing for me as well, both on FreeBSD and MacOS X.  I thought
perhaps my syntax was incorrect, but now that I see I'm not the only

As an aside, it WAS working for a very brief period on FreeBSD until I
upgraded to SA 2.5.  I don't know if it's related or not.

Tony Shadwick
Manager of Internet Services
Strategic Technology Group

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Dan Nelson wrote:

> In the last episode (Mar 16), Jeff Powell said:
> > I can't get the -r option to work!
> >
> > I am running Mandrake Linux 9.0 and Sendmail 8.12.8.  I have created

> > the spamass-milter file in /etc/sysconfig and given ownership to 
> > user nobody, group nogroup.  I am using Nigel Horne's initscript.  I

> > know the initscript is reading the file in /etc/sysconfig because it

> > complains if I make a deliberate mistake in the file.  My file 
> > contains this:
> >
> > SM_EXTRA_FLAGS="-u user -r 9"
> This is what you should see with -r:
> Mar 16 00:00:34 <2.6> dan spamd[94360]: processing message 
> <address@hidden> for root:26. Mar 16 
> 00:00:40 <2.6> dan spamd[94360]: identified spam (43.1/8.0) for 
> root:26 in 6.0 seconds, 1924 bytes. Mar 16 00:00:40 <2.6> dan 
> sm-mta[94358]: h2G60XZt094358: Milter: data, reject=550 5.7.1 Blocked 
> by SpamAssassin
> Also, do you really have a fallback user called "user"?  Using a 
> nonexistant one shoudln't do any harm, not that I think about it 
> though.
> --
>       Dan Nelson
>       address@hidden
> _______________________________________________
> Spamass-milt-list mailing list
> address@hidden 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]