Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1

[Eli Barzilay]

(Please CC me with replies, I'm not on this list.)

On Jun 27, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> Dan I did some noodling last night but I'm really not good with
> C++. (I'm ok with C.) I'm pretty sure that the milter is not sending
> a reject back to sendmail.

I saw the same problem with an upgraded spamass-milter too.  When I
saw the above message I had a look at the code.  I saw this:

  /* Summarily reject the message if SA tagged it, or if we have a minimum
     score, reject if it exceeds that score. */
  if (flag_reject)
  {
        bool do_reject = false;
        if (reject_score == -1 && !assassin->spam_flag().empty())
                do_reject = true;
        if (reject_score != -1) { ... }
        if (do_reject)
        {
                debug(D_MISC, "Rejecting");
                smfi_setreply(ctx, "550", "5.7.1", "Blocked by SpamAssassin");

                if (flag_bucket)
                {
                        /* If we also want a copy of the spam, shell out to 
sendmail and
                           send another copy.  The milter API will not let you 
send the
                           message AND return a failure code to the sender, so 
this is
                           the only way to do it. */
                        ... use sendmail to send a copy of the rejected mail ...
                }
                return SMFIS_REJECT;
        }
  }


So it looks like the code is *intentionally* sending a copy of the
rejected email before rejecting it, and even explains how it is
difficult to do so!  I disabled that bit of code (the innermost block
above), compiled and replaced my installed binary, and it now does
what I expected it to do -- messages that are labeled as spam are
caught in the spam bucket mailbox, and messages that are spammier than
the -r flag are rejected and not kept anywhere.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!