DNS resolution issue
I found some posts on the web indicating that, if spamd is having trouble doing DNS resolution, it's probably because of a bum entry in /etc/resolv.conf. I don't think that's the case here, though, so I'm coming to the list... My logs are full of runs like this: dns: sendto() to [127.0.0.1]:53 failed: Connection refused, failing over to [::1]:53 dns: sendto() to [::1]:53 failed: Connection refused, failing over to [127.0.0.1]:53 It bounces back and forth many times between ipv4 and ipv6, then ends in: dns: bad dns reply: Connection refused dns: bad dns reply: Connection refused dns: bad dns reply: Connection refused In between these runs, spamassassin works fine. Except the sa-update cronjobs also fail regularly with: /etc/cron.daily/spamassassin: channel: could not find working mirror, channel failed sa-update failed for unknown reasons Which I assume is attributable to the same problem. The server uses Rackspace's default DNS servers, and they appear to work okay. My assumption is that I've misconfigured something -- either spamd shouldn't be consulting localhost in the first place, or it shouldn't be trying to use ipv6, or maybe both. Can anyone guess from this what I might have set up incorrectly? Thanks! Eric
Trying to compile/build SA/latest from cpan on a BananaPi/Raspbian 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Trying to compile/build SA/latest from cpan on a BananaPi/Raspbian  Vastaanottaja SpamAssassin Users  Päiväys Tänään 21:24 Liitetiedostot Digitaalinen allekirjoitus (181 t) Show options Viestin runko Vahvistettu allekirjoitus lähettäjältä Jari Fredriksson . sa_compile tests fail. t/sa_compile.t 1/? # Failed test 1 in t/sa_compile.t at line 149 Not found: FOO = check: tests=FOO at t/sa_compile.t line 150. # Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 755 '/root/.cpan/build/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1-1/t/log/d.sa_compile/inst.basic/foo//local/bin/sa-compile - --keep-tmps' failed: DIED, signal 127 () at t/SATest.pm line 991. t/sa_compile.t Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 5/5 subtests I have all the prerequisities (I think) and jarif@fury:~ $ re2c -V 001305 jarif@fury:~ $ gcc --version gcc (Raspbian 4.9.2-10) 4.9.2 Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. What might cause this? Test Summary Report - --- t/sa_compile.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 2 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 1-2 Non-zero exit status: 2 Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 5 tests but ran 2. Files=168, Tests=3026, 1388 wallclock secs ( 6.62 usr 1.27 sys + 743.37 cusr 106.03 csys = 857.29 CPU) Result: FAIL Failed 1/168 test programs. 2/3026 subtests failed. Makefile:1411: recipe for target 'test_dynamic' failed make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 255 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlfpbK8ACgkQKL4IzOyjSrZvnwCffLumCc5EsLVAvNz4KiCqL1DY SucAoK2KwcPMsGSdWZIXkz+A++Bkx6P4 =lihi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Trying to compile/build SA/latest from cpan on a BananaPi/Raspbian
sa_compile tests fail. t/sa_compile.t 1/? # Failed test 1 in t/sa_compile.t at line 149 Not found: FOO = check: tests=FOO at t/sa_compile.t line 150. # Failed test 2 in t/SATest.pm at line 755 '/root/.cpan/build/Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1-1/t/log/d.sa_compile/inst.basic/foo//local/bin/sa-compile --keep-tmps' failed: DIED, signal 127 () at t/SATest.pm line 991. t/sa_compile.t Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) Failed 5/5 subtests I have all the prerequisities (I think) and jarif@fury:~ $ re2c -V 001305 jarif@fury:~ $ gcc --version gcc (Raspbian 4.9.2-10) 4.9.2 Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. What might cause this? -- Jari Fredriksson Bitwell Oy +358 400 779 440 ja...@bitwell.fi Dev: https://www.bitwell.fi Ops: https://www.bitwell.biz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:16:43 -0400 Joe Quinn wrote: > On 9/26/2016 8:54 AM, RW wrote: > > Informational rules do that, but IIRC __RULES are simply a special > > case. > > > Hmm, you're probably right on that point. I can't find anything in > the source that behaves that way, but the documentation claims that's > how it works and I also don't see anything to support being scored > 0.001 either. It's a long time since I looked it, but I think the way it works is that these are the only rules that don't have a default score. The scores are undefined so they don't contribute to the result, but they aren't actually 0, so they still run.
Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation
On 9/26/2016 8:54 AM, RW wrote: Informational rules do that, but IIRC __RULES are simply a special case. Hmm, you're probably right on that point. I can't find anything in the source that behaves that way, but the documentation claims that's how it works and I also don't see anything to support being scored 0.001 either.
Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 08:26:27 -0400 Joe Quinn wrote: > On 9/25/2016 9:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote: > >> I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something. > > I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight rule > > will still be checked if it's used as part of a metarule. > > > > --Sean > A rule that's weighted exactly zero will never fire. The way __RULES > get around this is by being scored 0.001. Informational rules do that, but IIRC __RULES are simply a special case.
Re: HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH and explanation
On 9/25/2016 9:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:57:37PM -0400, Alex wrote: I think the rule still has a use, perhaps in a meta or something. I believe (though don't quote me on this) that a zero-weight rule will still be checked if it's used as part of a metarule. --Sean A rule that's weighted exactly zero will never fire. The way __RULES get around this is by being scored 0.001.
Re: AW: X-Spam Tagging - Spam Status YESNO Flags - Sometimes not appended...
On 26.09.16 10:21, Maik Linnemann wrote: Additional: i have a limited number of Mails that are still not tagged. those mails doesnt regard to the mail size limit scenario as they are for example between 35kb ans 100kb or so and i have a limit of 2MB. anyone have a clue how to figure out whats happening? conspicuous most of those mails have X_ on their external routing way. X_ is not important. Received: headers are. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. The 3 biggets disasters: Hiroshima 45, Tschernobyl 86, Windows 95
AW: AW: X-Spam Tagging - Spam Status YESNO Flags - Sometimes not appended...
Additional: i have a limited number of Mails that are still not tagged. those
mails doesnt regard to the mail size limit scenario as they are for example
between 35kb ans 100kb or so and i have a limit of 2MB. anyone have a clue how
to figure out whats happening?
conspicuous most of those mails have X_ on their external routing way.
With kind of regards,
Maik Linnemann
Von: Maik Linnemann
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. September 2016 13:49
An: Matus UHLAR - fantomas; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Betreff: AW: AW: X-Spam Tagging - Spam Status YESNO Flags - Sometimes not
appended...
Thank you very much. That works.
Von: Matus UHLAR - fantomas [uh...@fantomas.sk]
Gesendet: Montag, 19. September 2016 12:26
An: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: X-Spam Tagging - Spam Status YESNO Flags - Sometimes not
appended...
>On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Maik Linnemann wrote:
>> SA is integrated into postix via master.cf like:
>> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>> user=nobody argv=/usr/bin/spamc -f -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f
>> ${sender} ${recipient}
>Please note the 'max-size' parameter for spamc:
>
> -s max_size, --max-size=max_size
On 17.09.16 10:34, Maik Linnemann wrote:
>Thanks! I checked that and it gave me a direction. Log says that messages
> skipped because of size limit which i haven't set and is still default
> (512000 bytes). On the other site I checked the messages that are not
> tagged and not all of them are bigger than 512kb. Anyway most of them
> are!
>
>I tried to set the -s option in /etc/default/spamassassin on debian to 1024000
>for a test, with no effect.
>
>Log still says its skipping due to the limit of 512000.
>
>Does anyone have a clue what needs to be done in debian?!
/etc/default/spamassassin contains options for spamassassin DAEMON, not for its
clients.
you must set the option for spamc in master.cf if you want it to apply.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Saving Private Ryan...
Private Ryan exists. Overwrite? (Y/N)
