On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Need Coffee <need.cof...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Mark Martinec > <mark.martinec+ama...@ijs.si> wrote: >>> It claims to have found an entry for u...@example.com "w/o IP address" >>> (ip="none", I assume) >> >> Yes, that would normally be an: u...@example.com|ip=none >> At that point the AutoWhitelist.pm should also be >> removing such database entry and replacing it with >> a new one containing the ip part. > > It seems like this isn't always happening, or that two messages > are being processed simultaneously for the same user and > they're stomping on each other's result. > >>> even though searching the database confirms that >>> an entry like that does not exist (I looked at all entries for >>> u...@example.com). >> >> There may be some other reason why AutoWhitelist thinks a >> record "u...@example.com|ip=none" exists. Try enabling >> DBI module tracing (SQL database access), see: man DBI. >> For example (assuming Bourne shell or alike): >> >> su vscan -c 'DBI_TRACE=2 spamassassin -t -D <0.lis' >0.log 2>&1 > > Thanks for that... that helped quite a bit. > >>> SA claims the weight of this nonexistent entry is -187.24 which explains >>> why the AWL is subtracting a large amount. >> >>> It then goes and adds the >>> new /16 to the db with a high score (38.844) as it should. >> >> At that point the old record (assuming it existed) should >> be deleted, so with a next attempt with a same message the >> matching on "w/o IP address" should not occur. >> Does it or does it not? > > Before I ran my test run, I found an ip=none entry sitting there. > (It wasn't there 15 minutes ago.) I quickly ran SA from the > commandline. > > The test run did indeed delete the ip=none entry, but it also used > it to score the message. AWL subtracted 39 points, and I made > sure that this was a new netblock (I changed it in the headers). > > I am running multiple servers against one database, each with > many amavisd processes. It is not unexpected that there may > be multiple messages inbound to the same recipient at the same > time -- so perhaps there is a bit of a race condition here? How > can the ip=none entry be made per-process or at least per-machine > specific? > >>> The AWL MyISAM table checks OK, is cleaned nightly and is >>> analyzed/optimized. (If this has gone into SA-land and you consider it no >>> longer relevant to amavisd, please let me know and I'll try there...) >> >> The SA 'users' ML would be more appropriate if you don't find the >> solution soon. > > Understood, and thanks for your continued help.
For the archives because I think it is solved: Even with amavisd you apparently have to configure trusted_networks for SA. I now have in local.cf the following which matches amavisd.conf's @mynetworks: clear_internal_networks internal_networks 127/8 internal_networks 10/8 clear_trusted_networks trusted_networks 127/8 trusted_networks 10/8 grep the debugging output of SA for 'networks' to see if it is warning about this. At least, that's how I discovered it (not the first time I grepped it, or read it, but somehow managed to miss the one line that said what the problem was). Did I miss it in the amavisd docs too? Thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
