Troy Ayers wrote:
To check build parameters: dspam --version.
On the stock debian builds (well at least on the Ubuntu ones) that
doesn't give any output. Never really understood why.
run dspam with the --debug switch ( my man page is a few years old,
please double check that --debug is the right switch to issue and also
check to see if it's compatible with daemon mode)
I'll see what I can find out, but I think dspam needs building with
--enable-debug for that to do anything useful, and I think (based on the
advice in dspam.conf) that is not how it was built.
Where would any root alias be set?
Whatever your postfix specifies it to be set as. My default location
is /etc/aliases. The postconf utility will tell you.
OK, postmaster is aliased to root, and root to user1 (the main user I
log into the server with, which isn't really user1 in case anyone wants
to try and hack my server :-)
I have no idea where that mail actually goes to, however. If I try:
$mail user1
.. to send an email to user1, then:
mail user1
.. I get "No mail for user1". There is nothing in Postfix's mail.log
which refers to user1.
I have modified the alias to go to a full email address that should work.
Would postfix have logged any failure to find a suitable
root/postmaster mailbox, and if so what should I look for in the logs?
Yes.
You would be better served looking up postfix questions yourself, to
be sure you're getting accurate information. Something like egrep
"error|fatal|panic|warning" /var/log/maillog.
Thanks, and yes I understand that this is not a Postfix list and will
check out any advice I get here separately. (Aside from the log file
being mail.log it looks pretty sound though.)
The only dspam related errors seem to be lots of:
process_message returned error -5. dropping message.
.. although I have no easy way to know if they're related to my problem.
Any idea what this means?
Looking at the Perl code I'm not convinced it is very careful, but I
really don't know much Perl at all. I've appended what I think is the
relevant subroutine below, but it looks to me like it extracts
messages, retrains on them (which I think leaves dspam to resend the
message?), then afterwards just deletes selected messages from the
quarantine (via Quarantine_DeleteSpam). There doesn't seem to be much
attempt to avoid deleting messages that couldn't be sent for some
reason.
I leave this up to those more knowledgeable than me to determine if a
bug report should be reported.
I certainly hope someone is able to look at the code, as if there is a
problem it'll be affecting more than just me, even if not always visibly!
If someone is at least able to compare the code I posted with the same
code in 3.8.x that might be useful.
Thanks again for your help.
--
Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0845 45 89 555
Registered in England (0456 0902) at 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG
!DSPAM:1011,4874d683150923427311555!
