On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 05:01, K Hargraves wrote:
> Is is possible for procmail to
>
> i intercept an email with an attachemnt which
> possesses an extension .xyz
>
> ii quarantine (i.e. send) to user doubful
>
> iii and send a message to the origina
Is is possible for procmail to
i intercept an email with an attachemnt which
possesses an extension .xyz
ii quarantine (i.e. send) to user doubful
iii and send a message to the original user that the email has
been interce
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:41:05PM -0600, Brad Alpert wrote:
> Ok, procmail problem solved. Maybe this will help someone else.
>
> When running procmail system-wide, with the spamd/spamc pair, the call
> to spamassassin in /etc/procmailrc is:
>
> :0fw
> * < 256000
> | spamc<<--
>
Schwendt
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:14:17 -0600 (CST), Brad Alpert wrote:
>
> > It's the files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:14:17 -0600 (CST), Brad Alpert wrote:
> It's the filesize.
I pointed that out in my message.
> Blank message, with only "Test" in the subject
> line, nothing in the body.
That would not give a '1', but at least a few hundred
It's the filesize. Blank message, with only "Test" in the subject
line, nothing in the body. All entries in my /var/log/procmail file
contain such a number. I didn't include the number before because
of line-wrapping problems.
FWIW, the actual spam flag that works right here is "X-Spam-Flag: YE
al Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brad Alpert
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Procmail processing problem
>
>
>
> Progress on the procmail front, still a little problem rema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:57:55 -0600, Brad Alpert wrote:
> Here's the output from /var/log/procmail in response to having the
> spamassassin test enabled:
>
> procmail: [24448] Mon Nov 18 19:57:13 2002
> procmail: Match on "< 256000"
> procmail: Execut
Progress on the procmail front, still a little problem remaining.
To recap - my global /etc/procmailrc wasn't catching any conditions I
threw at it. With help from many on the list yesterday, tonight I was
able to make it work.
Procmail functions great when I don't call spamassassin. Apparentl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17-Nov-2002/16:31 -0800, Rick Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm going on a limb here - but aren't folder specific recipes only
>appropriate in /home//.procmailrc? Otherwise ~/mail/spam would need to
>exist for everyone (assuming that MAILROOT=
On Sunday 17 November 2002 05:05 pm, Brad Alpert wrote:
> Michael Schwendt suggested the following ruleset:
> > Can you get any other recipe to work? And would
> >
> > :0:
> >
> > * ^Subject:.*
> > spam
> >
> > catch your message?
>
> No it didn't.
>
> The only rule that works is the spamassassin o
PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> If the logic below is correct - the reason the spamassassin
> rule works is
> because you're not writing to a spool, but filtering (piping)
> to a program.
>
> -Rick
--
redhat-li
m/pgp/rjohnson.asc
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Alpert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: Procmail processing problem
> Most probably that's true. But wouldn't the log show a choke if it
>
ped.
Brad
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> Brad Alpert wrote:
> &
Brad Alpert wrote:
> > Can you get any other recipe to work? And would
> >
> > :0:
> > * ^Subject:.*
> > spam
> >
> > catch your message?
>
> No it didn't.
>
> The only rule that works is the spamassassin one, in the sense that
> procmailrc properly calls it, applies the spam scores, and then injec
Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> .. already tried this?
>
> :0:
> * ^Subject:.*Test.*
> spam
The trailing .* is unnecessary since procmail automatically assumes .* after
your regex string.
-Rick
--
Rick Johnson, RHCE - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux/WAN Administrator - Medata, Inc.
PGP Key: https://mail.meda
Hey all, I've been following this thread pretty closely, as I'm wanting to set up a spam filter such
as the one described at:
http://www.fadden.com/techmisc/asian-spam.htm
I then went to tldp.org and found:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Mail-Administrator-HOWTO.html
Which I followed up by lookin
Michael Schwendt suggested the following ruleset:
> >
> > Ok, tried that, no differnce. Procmail still fails to fire.
> >
> > I think procmail ignores spaces in a line.
>
> Can you get any other recipe to work? And would
>
> :0:
> * ^Subject:.*
> spam
>
> catch your message?
No it didn't.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:19:36 -0600, Brad Alpert wrote:
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > :0:
> > * ^Subject:.*Test.*
> > spam
> >
> > Please note the dots around 'Test': Perhaps your mail program, or
> > whatever, is writing spaces around 'Test'. And I don't
Wolfgang wrote:
> :0:
> * ^Subject:.*Test.*
> spam
>
> Please note the dots around 'Test': Perhaps your mail program, or
> whatever, is writing spaces around 'Test'. And I don't know whether
> procmail 'sees' spaces as characters. ... If it does, the dots should
> catch that ...
>
> Hoping i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:29:42 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Brad Alpert wrote:
>
>
>
> > What I am concentrating on is the failure of my ^Subject.*Test
> > condition. The /var/log/procmail log shows that the condition isn't
> > catching a message se
Ok Rick, here goes:
> > What I am concentrating on is the failure of my ^Subject.*Test
> > condition. The /var/log/procmail log shows that the condition isn't
> > catching a message sent to myself with the subject line as "Test".
>
> Is this a global rule or a user rule?
Global. spamd is runni
On Nov 17, 2002, 13:48 (-0600) Brad Alpert wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback, Rick. I made the relevant change you
> suggested in the spam test.
>
> But I'm not testing the spam filter right now, because I don't get that
> much of it and I haven't bothered to generate bogus spam messages to
> s
Brad Alpert wrote:
> What I am concentrating on is the failure of my ^Subject.*Test
> condition. The /var/log/procmail log shows that the condition isn't
> catching a message sent to myself with the subject line as "Test".
Is this a global rule or a user rule?
> Any ideas of why procmail, whe
g identity of the recipient, VERBOSE=off
Folder: /var/spool/mail/balpert
Any idea why it might be failing?
Thanks/Brad
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 1:13 PM
> To
I've found that:
MAILDIR=$HOME/mail
:0 H:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
Spam
... etc
works fine via my ~/.procmailrc.
Note - I am running SpamAssassin on a global level via /etc/procmailrc
through the spamd daemon (much less CPU overhead). Not sure that should make
a difference in your case.
FYI: The
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Burger
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 12:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> Damn...another typo on my part...the missing -, and the all caps Yes.
>
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Kevin
Damn...another typo on my part...the missing -, and the all caps Yes.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Kevin MacNeil wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:04:07AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> > You've got the wrong X-Spam flag, there.
> >
> > It should be "X-Spam Status: YES"
>
> Shouldn't it be "X-Spam Statu
spam
>
> DROPPRIVS=yes
>
> *
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brad
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Burger
> > Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:04 AM
> &
spam to come in :)
Brad
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin MacNeil
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 17
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:04:07AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> You've got the wrong X-Spam flag, there.
>
> It should be "X-Spam Status: YES"
Shouldn't it be "X-Spam Status: Yes"?
At least that's what I use and it works fine. To be honest, I'm not
sure how case-sensitive procmail is wrt recip
---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Burger
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Procmail processing problem
>
>
> You've got the wrong X-Spam flag, there.
>
> It should be "X-Sp
You've got the wrong X-Spam flag, there.
It should be "X-Spam Status: YES"
Additionally, try "^Subject.*" instead of "^Subject: *".
On 17 Nov 2002, Brad Alpert wrote:
> I'm running RH 8.0 with the default installation of procmail. I have it
> set up as completely as seems necessary, but it wil
I'm running RH 8.0 with the default installation of procmail. I have it
set up as completely as seems necessary, but it will not flag and then
act upon messages which I think ought to be tagged.
I'm sure I've made a dumb configuration error somewhere, but can't find
it.
None of my header or subj
34 matches
Mail list logo
