Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-25 Thread Jake Colman
> "w" == wolfgang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: w> In an older episode (Friday 20 May 2005 18:07), Jake Colman wrote: >> When my server is up, all email is processed by my SA. If my server is >> down, my email is held for me at the backup MX. When my server comes >> back, the bac

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-22 Thread wolfgang
In an older episode (Friday 20 May 2005 18:07), Jake Colman wrote: > When my server is up, all email is processed by my SA. If my server is down, > my email is held for me at the backup MX. When my server comes back, the > backup MX sends me all my email. It appears to me that when my email is

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Jake Colman
Let me explain this system, since it might be relevant to the discussion. This is a simple home-based network server that is processing mail for its own domain. This domain (jnc.com) is known to the world and all email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is delivered to the sendmail running on my box. Al

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Matt Kettler
Martin Hepworth wrote: > Jake > > have a look at the output of "spamassassin -D --lint mailmessage". You > might be trusting the secondary MX or it might be bypassing you SA > system altogether. > SpamAssassin's concept of trust has nothing to do with it. There's no X-Spam-* headers, so SA is b

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Matt Kettler
Jake Colman wrote: >>"MK" == Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >MK> Jake Colman wrote: >>> If my sendmail server is down, a backup MX in a different domain > catches all >>> my email. When my sendmail server comes back up, the backup MX dumps > all the >>> mail i

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Jake Colman
Could it be something about trusted relays? Do I need to tell it scan email received from my backup MX? I did not deliberately tell anything to bypass SA and my /etc/procmail will, I assume, trigger for all mail delivered to my sendmail server even if it comes from my backup MX, right? > "M

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Jake Colman
> "MK" == Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MK> Jake Colman wrote: >> If my sendmail server is down, a backup MX in a different domain catches all >> my email. When my sendmail server comes back up, the backup MX dumps all the >> mail it's been holding for me. It seems t

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-20 Thread Martin Hepworth
Jake have a look at the output of "spamassassin -D --lint mailmessage". You might be trusting the secondary MX or it might be bypassing you SA system altogether. -- Martin Hepworth Snr Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300 Jake Colman wrote: If my sendmail server is dow

Re: SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-19 Thread Matt Kettler
Jake Colman wrote: > If my sendmail server is down, a backup MX in a different domain catches all > my email. When my sendmail server comes back up, the backup MX dumps all the > mail it's been holding for me. It seems that all the email sent to me in > this manner bypasses my SA filtering. Why

SA Sometimes Being Bypassed?

2005-05-19 Thread Jake Colman
If my sendmail server is down, a backup MX in a different domain catches all my email. When my sendmail server comes back up, the backup MX dumps all the mail it's been holding for me. It seems that all the email sent to me in this manner bypasses my SA filtering. Why should this be? I beleive