Re: OT: Postfix problem I am hoping you can help with
Did you try to use [ ] around the domain: ":[smtp.nildram.co.uk]"? This prevents that postfix looks up MX for the given host but uses the target directly.Maybe you should have a deeper look into the log (optionally raise verbose level). Thomas2006/5/30, James Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I am trying to get out Postfix server to send AOL mail to our ISP ratherthan directly to AOL as they insist on bouncing our mail if we senddirectly.I am editing the transport files with the following lines... aol.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk.aol.comsmtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk gmail.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.ukWith the gmail one there so I can test it is working, unfortunately after a"postfix restart" it is still sending the mail directly. I am also a little concerned that the transport file has the following atthe top of it...## MTA Managment Transport List;## Please do NOT edit it manually;#So where am I supposed to edit it? Can anyone help as this is driving me crazy.--Jay--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 29/05/2006
Re: not so Newbie- bad fedora 5.0 install?
> /etc/procmailrc: > :0fw > | /usr/bin/spamassassin You would be considerably better off in terms of system resources to be using spamc/spamd for this sort of configuration. That said, I can't see why this should stop working now if it has been working before. What changed? You say you have been using it for years and it worked, and now it doesn't. Did it just stop one day? Did you upgrade versions? Upgrade OS? Something else? Try running 'spamassassin --lint' as the same user that SA would run as from procmail, and see what the output is. It shouldn't say anything. If it does you have configuration problems to fix. Getting past that, you can run with the -D option and get all kinds of useful information that may help. Loren
RE: Razor2 Error
Full worked, with the correct number of parameters.
fullRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 eval:check_razor2_range('','00','01')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 Razor2 gives confidence between 00 and 01
fullRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 eval:check_razor2_range('','02','10')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 Razor2 gives confidence between 02 and 10
fullRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 eval:check_razor2_range('','11','50')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 Razor2 gives confidence level of 10-50%
fullRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 eval:check_razor2_range('','51','90')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 Razor2 gives confidence level of 50-90%
fullRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 eval:check_razor2_range('','91','100')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 90%
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 08:49 PM
To: Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Razor2 Error
Try using full rules, instead of body rules, like the ones included with
SpamAssassin.
Daryl
Re: Razor2 Error
On 5/29/2006 1:15 PM, Dan O'Brien wrote:
"Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I found my problem. I had some custom definitions that used
eval:check_razor2_range. I deleted the custom definitions
and the error went away.
Jim
Yup... that was my problem, too:
# Razor Adjustments
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 0 # default 0 1.485 0 0.056
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_40_59 eval:check_razor2_range('40', '59'
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_40_59 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_40_59 Razor2 gives confidence level 40-59%
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_60_100 eval:check_razor2_range('60', '100')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_60_100 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_60_100 Razor2 gives confidence level 60-100%
score RAZOR2_CHECK0 2.0 0 2.0 # default 0 0.150 0 1.511
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_40_59 0 1.0 0 1.0
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_60_100 0 2.0 0 2.0
Try calling the eval tests with the correct number of parameters.
Daryl
Re: Razor2 Error
Try using full rules, instead of body rules, like the ones included with
SpamAssassin.
Daryl
On 5/29/2006 9:48 AM, Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster wrote:
I tried changing the definitions to the new format. I still got the error.
# complete set of ranges - jwh 9/29/05
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 eval:check_razor2_range('','00','01')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 Razor2 gives confidence between 00 and 01
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 eval:check_razor2_range('','02','10')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 Razor2 gives confidence between 02 and 10
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 eval:check_razor2_range('','11','50')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 Razor2 gives confidence level of 10-50%
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 eval:check_razor2_range('','51','90')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 Razor2 gives confidence level of 50-90%
bodyRAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 eval:check_razor2_range('','91','100')
tflags RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 net
describe RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 90%
My local.cf contained
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_00_01 0.01
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_02_10 0.10
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_11_50 0.50
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 0.00
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_90 3.70
score RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_91_100 7.50
-Original Message-
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 02:37 AM
To: Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Razor2 Error
Jim Hermann - UUN Hostmaster wrote:
I found my problem. I had some custom definitions that used
eval:check_razor2_range. I deleted the custom definitions and the error
went away.
What were the custom rules you had that caused that error? It's likely
that we could add/improve validation of that config.
Daryl
Install Location on OS X?
OK - I am confused about where spamassassin, spamc, spamd, etc. are supposed to get installed when installing on OS X 10.4.6 using CPAN. Seems like it sometimes ends up in /usr/bin and sometimes in /usr/ local/bin So, where SHOULD it be installing? And how do I insure that it gets installed in the same place every time? -- Chris Jett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 3.1.2-Windows, exit codes broken?
A reminder: if you don't bug that it won't get fixed. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: SA 3.1.2 - warnings in syslog from spamd [permission denied, etc]
> > > Hi all, > > Hope you can help. Just upgraded my SpamAssassin to 3.1.2 from 3.0.2 and > I'm now seeing warnings in syslog that weren't appearing before. > > They seem to relate to spamd running as user 'antispam', yet it wants > access to read/write files in $HOME/.spamassassin: > ...[snip lots]... Answer: RTFM -- more browsing and I read the README for spamd. For the first time since I first installed it years ago. Oops :-) Have removed the '-u' switch to spamd; going to ponder the merits (or otherwise) of this as it theoretically makes things slightly unsafer for those using spamc/spamd if any holes are found. Chris...
not so Newbie- bad fedora 5.0 install?
I am new to the list, but a long time spamassassin user. I have never needed to subscribe becuase it has always simply worked. the problem I have is that I pipe the mail through SA, but SA does not appear to process the mail. That is, I do not get the additional lines to the header etc- the mail looks just like it did before the piping. I have checked the /etc/procmailrc is there and working- it is (after the piping to SA I can add lines to /etc/procmailrc to copy mail etc and they work properly so I assume the pipe above them is working) configuration: (as plain jane as they come) OS: Fedora 5.0 SA ver: spamassassin-3.1.1-1.fc5 /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf required_hits 5 report_safe 0 rewrite_header Subject **SPAM** /etc/procmailrc: :0fw | /usr/bin/spamassassin there are no messages in /var/log/messages that indicate any sort of errors worth logging. I do not believe I have done anything to change the default behavior of SA to add header lines etc- any comment? many thanks to all- michael *** Michael C. Mulhern TriPyramid Structures, Inc. 59 Power Rd. Westford, MA 01880 978-692-0555 (v) 978-692-0666 (f) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.tripyramid.com ***
SA 3.1.2 - warnings in syslog from spamd [permission denied, etc]
Hi all, Hope you can help. Just upgraded my SpamAssassin to 3.1.2 from 3.0.2 and I'm now seeing warnings in syslog that weren't appearing before. They seem to relate to spamd running as user 'antispam', yet it wants access to read/write files in $HOME/.spamassassin: May 30 20:36:26 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 4533 May 30 20:36:26 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: processing message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for cej:51 May 30 20:36:26 linux2 spamd[17009]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock.linux2.nccnet.co.uk.17009 for /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock: Permission denied May 30 20:36:26 linux2 spamd[17009]: auto-whitelist: open of auto-whitelist file failed: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock.linux2.nccnet.co.uk.17009 for /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.lock: Permission denied May 30 20:36:27 linux2 spamd[17009]: bayes: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile /home/cej/.spamassassin/bayes.lock.linux2.nccnet.co.uk.17009 for /home/cej/.spamassassin/bayes.lock: Permission denied May 30 20:36:27 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: clean message (0.0/5.0) for cej:51 in 0.8 seconds, 1462 bytes. May 30 20:36:27 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: result: . 0 - scantime=0.8,size=1462,user=cej,uid=51,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=4533,mid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,autolearn=failed I tried making $HOME/.spamassassin read/write [mode 777, not really what I want to do] but got this: May 30 20:47:14 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 4546 May 30 20:47:14 linux2 spamd[17009]: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/cej/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O: tie failed: Permission denied May 30 20:47:14 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: processing message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for cej:51 May 30 20:47:14 linux2 spamd[17009]: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/cej/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O: tie failed: Permission denied May 30 20:47:15 linux2 spamd[17009]: bayes: cannot open bayes databases /home/cej/.spamassassin/bayes_* R/O: tie failed: Permission denied May 30 20:47:15 linux2 spamd[17009]: auto-whitelist: cannot open auto_whitelist_path /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist: Permission denied May 30 20:47:15 linux2 spamd[17009]: auto-whitelist: open of auto-whitelist file failed: auto-whitelist: cannot open auto_whitelist_path /home/cej/.spamassassin/auto-whitelist: Permission denied May 30 20:47:15 linux2 spamd[17009]: spamd: identified spam (9.3/5.0) for cej:51 in 1.2 seconds, 4178 bytes. A google suggested that it's running with per-user configs, so I added -x to spamd and that just moved the problem to the root directory: May 30 20:33:27 linux2 spamd[16943]: spamd: connection from localhost [127.0.0.1] at port 4527 May 30 20:33:27 linux2 spamd[16943]: spamd: processing message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for cej:51 May 30 20:33:27 linux2 spamd[16943]: config: can not determine userstate dir May 30 20:33:27 linux2 spamd[16943]: config: can not determine userstate dir May 30 20:33:27 linux2 spamd[16943]: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile /auto-whitelist.lock.linux2.nccnet.co.uk.16943 for /auto-whitelist.lock: Permission denied May 30 20:33:28 linux2 spamd[16943]: auto-whitelist: open of auto-whitelist file failed: locker: safe_lock: cannot create tmp lockfile /auto-whitelist.lock.linux2.nccnet.co.uk.16943 for /auto-whitelist.lock: Permission denied May 30 20:33:28 linux2 spamd[16943]: spamd: clean message (1.2/5.0) for cej:51 in 0.9 seconds, 1463 bytes. May 30 20:33:28 linux2 spamd[16943]: spamd: result: . 1 - BLANK_LINES_70_80 scantime=0.9,size=1463,user=cej,uid=51,required_score=5.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=4527,mid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,autolearn=no May 30 20:33:28 linux2 spamd[16942]: prefork: child states: II Now there must be a setting somewhere to set where spamd wants to write its files to, but I haven't found it yet. If someone can give me some pointers (as I've not seen anything in the FAQ, and couldn't find the right phrase for google to give be a solid answer), it'd be appreciated :-) System Overview: SpamAssassin 3.1.2 Qmail 1.0.3 SpamAssassin running as: /usr/bin/spamd -d -r /var/run/spamd.pid -u antispam -p 7783 spamd being access via .procmailrc with the following rule: :0 wf |/usr/bin/spamc -f -s 30 -p 7783 Qmail configured to deliver user mail to $HOME/Mailbox Cheers, Chris... -- \ Chris Johnson \ NP: Nothing! \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ \ http://cej.nightwolf.org.uk/ \ \ http://redclaw.org.uk/~---
RE: 3.1.2-Windows, exit codes broken?
>I mean this: > >- bug 3754: if there's a problem opening a file via sa-learn or spamassassin, return an error exit value. > >It indicates there might have been changes to that area of the code which concerns your problem. > >Kai I understand, thanks for the clarification. I had some time over the weekend to install 3.1.2 on a second Windows box and had the same result, exit code always zero with -e option and messages determined by spamassassin to be spam. Oh well, back to 3.1.1 for me. The ability to script spamassassin as an MTA pickup event and process the message according to the result code is too good to give up :) Thanks, Craig
Re: bypassing SPF check for some domains
klaus thorn wrote: can I configure spamassassin to not do SPF check for certain domains? Sort of, but it involves overriding some of the default rules in local.cf. Basically you need to do the following: 1. Copy the SPF eval rules to a new set of non-scored rules. 2. Create a header rule that checks for the domains you want to skip. 3. Create a set of meta rules with the original names of the SPF rules. Here's the code we use to ignore SPF_SOFTFAIL on a couple of domains: header __REAL_SPF_SOFTFAIL eval:check_for_spf_softfail() header __FROM_SKIP_SPF From =~ /\@(?:domain1\.com|domain2\.net)\b/i meta SPF_SOFTFAIL (__REAL_SPF_SOFTFAIL && !__FROM_SKIP_SPF) You should be able to do the same with the other SPF rules. Note that SpamAssassin still does the SPF check, it just doesn't score it if it matches one of those domains. -- Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications
Re: 3.1.2 spamd dies without warning
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:31:27AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > BTW, can anybody tell me whether or not spamd re-reads the .pre files if > you just give it a SIG HUP, or do you have to kill and restart it (I did > that this time anyway)? A HUP should cause spamd to re-exec (basically killing itself off and restarting), reading in all the config files again. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "You have to stay in shape. My grandmother, she started walking 5 miles a day when she was 60. She's 97 today and we don't know where the hell she is." - Ellen DeGeneres pgpQfs7H8PzLN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 3.1.2 spamd dies without warning
Ok, I'm giving that a shot. The only changes I noted wrt DCC were licensing-related, but I hadn't run it in so long, I can't recall wether it was worth the trouble or not. I've already noticed CPU went way down after disabling it. :) BTW, can anybody tell me whether or not spamd re-reads the .pre files if you just give it a SIG HUP, or do you have to kill and restart it (I did that this time anyway)? Thanks again! On Tue, 30 May 2006, Justin Mason wrote: > > eek. There were changes made to the DCC support; could you try turning > that off again, to see if that may have been the culprit? > > --j. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I upgraded from 3.0.4 yesterday without too much trouble...once I got > > 3.1.2 online, I noticed a nice reduction in false negatives, and cpu > > remained low (holiday here in US). > > > > This morning, spamd died with no warning, except of course a huge increase > > in spam. Nothing in /var/log/messages, and only this in maillog: > > > > May 30 08:19:27 mail spamd[83175]: spamd: result: Y 44 - > > BAYES_99,EXTRA_MPART_TY > > PE,HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_MES > > SAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1,INFO_TLD,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZO > > R2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SUR > > BL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL > > scantime=1.5,size=13627,user=simscan,uid=0,requ > > ired_score=6.0,rhost=localhost.pil.net,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=2895,mid=<000c01c68 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,bayes=0.9998609,autolearn=spam > > May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83329]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 > > failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused > > May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83359]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 > > failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused > > > > It took me about an hour and a half to notice it. I restarted spamd and > > it's going ok at moderate cpu use. Here are my flags with which I start > > spamd: > > > > /usr/local/bin/spamd -m 15 -d -x -r /var/run/spamd.pid > > > > The only changes I made with the upgrade were that I enabled SPF, DCC and > > Pyzor. When building the new version, it did complain about an outdated > > razor2 software, but as it was only a warning (and I'd never had problems > > with it before), I didn't bother to UG. > > > > Any ideas as to the possible cause? > > > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://3.am > > = > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am =
Re: 3.1.2 spamd dies without warning
eek. There were changes made to the DCC support; could you try turning that off again, to see if that may have been the culprit? --j. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I upgraded from 3.0.4 yesterday without too much trouble...once I got > 3.1.2 online, I noticed a nice reduction in false negatives, and cpu > remained low (holiday here in US). > > This morning, spamd died with no warning, except of course a huge increase > in spam. Nothing in /var/log/messages, and only this in maillog: > > May 30 08:19:27 mail spamd[83175]: spamd: result: Y 44 - > BAYES_99,EXTRA_MPART_TY > PE,HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_MES > SAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1,INFO_TLD,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZO > R2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SUR > BL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL > scantime=1.5,size=13627,user=simscan,uid=0,requ > ired_score=6.0,rhost=localhost.pil.net,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=2895,mid=<000c01c68 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,bayes=0.9998609,autolearn=spam > May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83329]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 > failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused > May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83359]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 > failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused > > It took me about an hour and a half to notice it. I restarted spamd and > it's going ok at moderate cpu use. Here are my flags with which I start > spamd: > > /usr/local/bin/spamd -m 15 -d -x -r /var/run/spamd.pid > > The only changes I made with the upgrade were that I enabled SPF, DCC and > Pyzor. When building the new version, it did complain about an outdated > razor2 software, but as it was only a warning (and I'd never had problems > with it before), I didn't bother to UG. > > Any ideas as to the possible cause? > > James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://3.am > =
3.1.2 spamd dies without warning
I upgraded from 3.0.4 yesterday without too much trouble...once I got 3.1.2 online, I noticed a nice reduction in false negatives, and cpu remained low (holiday here in US). This morning, spamd died with no warning, except of course a huge increase in spam. Nothing in /var/log/messages, and only this in maillog: May 30 08:19:27 mail spamd[83175]: spamd: result: Y 44 - BAYES_99,EXTRA_MPART_TY PE,HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC,HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2,HTML_90_100,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08,HTML_MES SAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1,INFO_TLD,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100,RAZO R2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100,RAZOR2_CHECK,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SUR BL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL scantime=1.5,size=13627,user=simscan,uid=0,requ ired_score=6.0,rhost=localhost.pil.net,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=2895,mid=<000c01c68 [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,bayes=0.9998609,autolearn=spam May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83329]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused May 30 08:19:34 mail spamc[83359]: connect(AF_INET) to spamd at 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (#1 of 3): Connection refused It took me about an hour and a half to notice it. I restarted spamd and it's going ok at moderate cpu use. Here are my flags with which I start spamd: /usr/local/bin/spamd -m 15 -d -x -r /var/run/spamd.pid The only changes I made with the upgrade were that I enabled SPF, DCC and Pyzor. When building the new version, it did complain about an outdated razor2 software, but as it was only a warning (and I'd never had problems with it before), I didn't bother to UG. Any ideas as to the possible cause? James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am =
RE: Postfix problem I am hoping you can help with
The format is correct, although I use IP address myself. So, I would do like this. aol.com smtp:192.168.5.3 You must also specify AOL as a domain you accept in the 'relay_domains' (main.cf file) You must also add the following line (or similar) to main.cf transport_maps = hash/etc/postfix/transport Remember, to make transport work you must also do a 'postmap' after you edit the file. postmap /etc/postfix/transport That creates the actual DB file that postfix can use. Then restart postfix. > -Original Message- > From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:29 AM > To: 'SpamAssassin Users List' > Subject: OT: Postfix problem I am hoping you can help with > > > I am trying to get out Postfix server to send AOL mail to our ISP rather > than directly to AOL as they insist on bouncing our mail if we send > directly. > > I am editing the transport files with the following lines... > > aol.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk > .aol.comsmtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk > gmail.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk > > With the gmail one there so I can test it is working, > unfortunately after a > "postfix restart" it is still sending the mail directly. > > I am also a little concerned that the transport file has the following at > the top of it... > > # > # MTA Managment Transport List; > # > # Please do NOT edit it manually; > # > > So where am I supposed to edit it? > > Can anyone help as this is driving me crazy. > > -- > Jay > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 29/05/2006 > > > >
RE: V3.1.2 hanging up
Thought about that - I've shifted to a systemwide bayes and set a separate cron job to do the expire process... things seem to be running more stable... --Will -Original Message- From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:18 PM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: V3.1.2 hanging up > 2) Occasionally, a child process will spawn off and sit there using 60-80% > of the CPU for 20-30 (or more) minutes. Each time I've seen it thus far, > I've ended up killing the process. Are you running bayes or awl? If so, check the database sizes. It might be the child is trying to do a huge expire run. Loren
OT: Postfix problem I am hoping you can help with
I am trying to get out Postfix server to send AOL mail to our ISP rather than directly to AOL as they insist on bouncing our mail if we send directly. I am editing the transport files with the following lines... aol.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk .aol.comsmtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk gmail.com smtp:smtp.nildram.co.uk With the gmail one there so I can test it is working, unfortunately after a "postfix restart" it is still sending the mail directly. I am also a little concerned that the transport file has the following at the top of it... # # MTA Managment Transport List; # # Please do NOT edit it manually; # So where am I supposed to edit it? Can anyone help as this is driving me crazy. -- Jay -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.4/351 - Release Date: 29/05/2006
Re: Semi-OT query
This perhaps? http://www.willowstarcom.co.uk/index.php/p83_starscan_antivirus_and_spam_e_mail_detection.html KR Nigel On Tue, 30 May 2006 00:01:31 -0700, "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I happened to notice the following headers in a mail message I received: > >X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,- >X-Originating-IP: [65.54.161.84] >X-Originating-IP: [68.163.253.131] >X-SpamReason: No, hits=1.6 required=7.0 tests=BODY_RANDOM_LONG, >HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER > >This looks for all the world like a customized header for some older version >of SA. >Anyone know what StarScan is, and if it uses an SA engine? > >Loren
Semi-OT query
I happened to notice the following headers in a mail message I received: X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [65.54.161.84] X-Originating-IP: [68.163.253.131] X-SpamReason: No, hits=1.6 required=7.0 tests=BODY_RANDOM_LONG, HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER This looks for all the world like a customized header for some older version of SA. Anyone know what StarScan is, and if it uses an SA engine? Loren
