[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1
From: |
Dan Nelson |
Subject: |
Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1 |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:00:07 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
In the last episode (Jun 26), Steven W. Orr said:
> The X-Spam-Flag: YES is set.
>
> I'm wondering if this might be part of the problem:
>
> Jun 26 09:03:36 saturn spamass-milter[4111]: Could not retrieve sendmail
> macro "r"!. Please add it to confMILTER_MACROS_ENVRCPT for better
> spamassassin results
No, that shouldn't hurt. The "r" macro will contain either "SMTP" or
"ESMTP" and is just used to generate a fake Received: header that
matches the one sendmail will add if the message gets delivered.
> This is my sendmail setup:
>
> INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`spamassassin',
> `S=local:/var/run/spamass.sock, F=, T=C:15m;S:4m;R:4m;E:10m')dnl
> dnl INPUT_MAIL_FILTER(`milter-regex',
> dnl `S=unix:/var/run/milter-regex/sock, T=S:30s;R:2m')dnl
> define(`confMILTER_MACROS_CONNECT',
> `b, j, _, {daemon_name}, {if_name}, {if_addr} ')dnl
If you add another line to your .mc file:
define(`confMILTER_MACROS_ENVRCPT',`r, v, Z')dnl
that warning should go away.
Ad for your mail not getting blocked, try replacing the "-r -1"
spamass-milter option with "-r 10" temporarily, and see if mail scored
above 10 gets blocked. If it is blocked, then I know the problem is
with the "-r -1" code.
--
Dan Nelson
address@hidden
- Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Steven W. Orr, 2006/06/25
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Steven W. Orr, 2006/06/25
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Dan Nelson, 2006/06/25
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Steven W. Orr, 2006/06/26
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1,
Dan Nelson <=
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Steven W. Orr, 2006/06/26
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Steven W. Orr, 2006/06/27
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Damian Menscher, 2006/06/27
- Re: Problem with upgrade from 0.2.0.0 to 0.3.1, Dan Nelson, 2006/06/27