You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Eduardo Gimeno <ed...@casagimeno.com> on 2006/02/16 09:34:57 UTC
Several problems with SA 3.1
Hello.
I have installed SA 3.1 some weeks ago, and I have had time enough to test
it, and I noticed the following problems:
1.-A lot of mails are retained in the mailq. They appear as "deferred" and
stay blocked there for days. Their recipients are spammer whose address is
unreal. My user .procmailrc says "EXITCODE=67", and I have checked that 67
means "User unknown". Actually, I see a lot of messages in
/var/log/maillog with: "cannot chdir to /var/spool/mail/user". Should I
change the EXITCODE with $? as I saw in other documents? I have to login
to my server everyday to delete all pending email...
2.-SA was classifying mail properly, attending to "^X-Spam-Status: .*Yes",
into spam and ham folders. Since yesterday, all legitimate (ham) mail is
going directly to SPAM folder, without any mark. What has changed??? I
noticed the headers were including the tag:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
I suspected that the "YES" from "baYES_00" was being filtered with the
rule ".*Yes", and I changed the rule to "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Now it
works, but I don't understand why I had to do this change.
3.-I suspect some emails are being rejected without notice. How can I know???
4.-Other related problem...: Since I had to recompile lots of perl modules
in order to get SA working, I am having some problems with apache. When I
request some medium-load pages (all of them with PHP), for example
SquirrelWebMail, or WordPress, randomly (1 out of 5) I get a "Page not
found" in the client, and a "child pid $pid exit signal Segmentation fault
(11)" in httpd/[ssl_]error_log. I have read about hardware failures
(memory/swap/cache...) related to error 11, but I didn't alter any
hardware configuration, just compiled some cpan perl modules... Any help?
Thanks for your time!
Regards.
Eduardo Gimeno.
Re: Several problems with SA 3.1
Posted by Chris Purves <ch...@northfolk.ca>.
Eduardo Gimeno wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I found the sample .procmailrc file at some
> documentation page... I would expect it beign case sensitive to...
> Well, then I leave the rule as "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Anyhow this way it
> is working. I wonder why this changed from one day to other...
>
> What about the EXITCODE? Is 67 right? Is #67 causing all the outgoing (and
> deferred) mail? Should I change it to $? as seen on other examples?
>
Sorry, I only know about regular expressions... :-)
I'm sure someone else on this list that is more knowledgeable than me
will be able to help you with that.
--
Good day, eh.
Chris
Re: Several problems with SA 3.1
Posted by Frank Bures <li...@chem.toronto.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:22:30 +0100 (CET), Eduardo Gimeno wrote:
>Thanks for the reply. I found the sample .procmailrc file at some
>documentation page... I would expect it beign case sensitive to...
>Well, then I leave the rule as "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Anyhow this way it
>is working. I wonder why this changed from one day to other...
Procmail recipes are by default case insensitive. If you want to make them
case sensitive, you have to include parameter "D".
Frank Bures, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Toronto, M5S 3H6
fbures@chem.toronto.edu
http://www.chem.utoronto.ca
PGP public key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=Frank+Bures
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use
Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2
Charset: cp850
wj8DBQFD9gpcih0Xdz1+w+wRAuU/AJ9+hF4XAK4YRapJ/h8d2+4XCFqnaQCgvD5/
LC2d1KFA/wJZVytOPkVfiPM=
=hfQx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Several problems with SA 3.1
Posted by Eduardo Gimeno <ed...@casagimeno.com>.
Thanks for the reply. I found the sample .procmailrc file at some
documentation page... I would expect it beign case sensitive to...
Well, then I leave the rule as "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Anyhow this way it
is working. I wonder why this changed from one day to other...
What about the EXITCODE? Is 67 right? Is #67 causing all the outgoing (and
deferred) mail? Should I change it to $? as seen on other examples?
Thanks!
Eduardo Gimeno
Chris Purves dijo:
> Eduardo Gimeno wrote:
>>
>> 2.-SA was classifying mail properly, attending to "^X-Spam-Status:
>> .*Yes",
>> into spam and ham folders. Since yesterday, all legitimate (ham) mail is
>> going directly to SPAM folder, without any mark. What has changed??? I
>> noticed the headers were including the tag:
>>
>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
>> FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
>>
>> I suspected that the "YES" from "baYES_00" was being filtered with the
>> rule ".*Yes", and I changed the rule to "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Now it
>> works, but I don't understand why I had to do this change.
>>
> Regular expressions are greedy. They will always match the largest
> value they can.
>
> "^X-Spam-Status: .*Yes" means match "X-Spam-Status: " at the beginning
> of the line then as many characters as possible then "Yes". I am
> surprised that it's not case sensative, though.
>
> Since the location of "Yes" is well defined, it's better not to use ".*"
> and keep a single space.
>
> But I also don't see that this has anything to do with spamassassin,
> since filing mail should be the job of the MTA.
>
> --
> Good day, eh.
> Chris
>
Re: Several problems with SA 3.1
Posted by Chris Purves <ch...@northfolk.ca>.
Eduardo Gimeno wrote:
>
> 2.-SA was classifying mail properly, attending to "^X-Spam-Status: .*Yes",
> into spam and ham folders. Since yesterday, all legitimate (ham) mail is
> going directly to SPAM folder, without any mark. What has changed??? I
> noticed the headers were including the tag:
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
> FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
>
> I suspected that the "YES" from "baYES_00" was being filtered with the
> rule ".*Yes", and I changed the rule to "^X-Spam-Status: Yes". Now it
> works, but I don't understand why I had to do this change.
>
Regular expressions are greedy. They will always match the largest
value they can.
"^X-Spam-Status: .*Yes" means match "X-Spam-Status: " at the beginning
of the line then as many characters as possible then "Yes". I am
surprised that it's not case sensative, though.
Since the location of "Yes" is well defined, it's better not to use ".*"
and keep a single space.
But I also don't see that this has anything to do with spamassassin,
since filing mail should be the job of the MTA.
--
Good day, eh.
Chris