Now I am running spamd under spamd user but still getting these errors. Dec 13 06:36:19 mail spamd[13874]: connection from localhost.webexs.com [127.0.0.1] at port 56043 Dec 13 06:36:19 mail spamd[13874]: Creating default_prefs [/nonexistent/.spamassassin/user_prefs] Dec 13 06:36:19 mail spamd[13874]: Cannot write to /nonexistent/.spamassassin/user_prefs: No such file or directory Dec 13 06:36:19 mail spamd[13874]: Couldn't create readable default_prefs for [/nonexistent/.spamassassin/user_prefs] Dec 13 06:36:19 mail spamd[13874]: processing message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for clamav:1011. Dec 13 06:36:25 mail spamd[13874]: clean message (-2.6/5.0) for clamav:1011 in 6.1 seconds, 1369 bytes. Dec 13 06:36:25 mail spamd[13874]: result: . -2 - ALL_TRUSTED,DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,HTML_90_100,HTML_MESSAGE scantime=6.1,s ize=1369,mid=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,autolearn=failed
--- Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:53 AM 12/12/2005, Its Azfar wrote: > >1. > >spamd[6203]: Couldn't create readable default_prefs > >for [/n > >onexistent/.spamassassin/user_prefs] > > <snip> > > If you are running spamd as root, it will try to > setuid itself to the user > that calls spamc. However, if that user turns out to > be root, spamd will > setuid itself to "nobody" for safety. > > The "nobody" user can't write it's own homedir (and > should not be able to!) > thus SA couldn't create a profile directory to store > user_prefs or bayes > learning into. > > If you're calling spamc on a per-user basis, (ie: > from a script running as > their userid) don't worry as this only affects roots > mail. > > If you're calling spamc from a root-privileged > script on a site-wide basis, > you might want to consider creating a "spamd" user > and passing that > username to the -u parameter of spamd. > > >2. > >Second here is my local.cf > > > >rewrite_header Subject *****SPAM***** > >report_safe 1 > > report_safe defines how SA handles mail when it tags > it. This setting will > cause SA to encapsulate the spam as an attachment to > a warning message. > Setting this to 2 will encapsulate the spam's source > as a text-file > attachment, instead of a multipart message > attachment. Setting this to 0 > disables encapsulation, and SA only modifies the > subject as needed, and > adds X-Spam-* headers. > > > >rewrite_subject 1 > > The rewrite_subject option should be removed. It's > obsolete and is replaced > by the rewrite_header command your using. > > >required_hits 5 > >required_score 5.0 > > required_hits and required_score do the same thing, > but required_hits is > syntax from obsolete version of SA. Remove the > required_hits line. > > These options determine what score threshold SA will > tag mail as spam at. > If you lower the threshold, SA will catch more spam, > but there's a higher > chance it will mis-tag a non-spam email. Conversely > If you raise it, SA > will be less-likely to mis-tag a non-spam email as > spam, but more real spam > will be missed. > > >use_bayes 1 > > Turns on the bayesian statistical classifier. See > man sa-learn. > > >skip_rbl_checks 0 > > Does not disable use of DNS RBL checks. These checks > are very helpful, but > can take a few seconds and are not well suited to > very high volume sites. > > >use_razor2 1 > >use_dcc 1 > >use_pyzor 1 > > Disables or enables various add-ons. Note: if you're > using SA 3.1.0 these > options are largely obsolete, as you have to enable > them with plugins in > v310.pre. > > > > >What does this conf will do specially required_hits > >and required_score. > > > (see above) > > > > All of these options match SA's default values, so > aren't really necessary, > but they're handy as a reference sometimes. > > > I want that initialy spamassassin > >only mark mails as SPAM but on more higher hit it > will > >delete them. > >Wht should I set required_hits and required_score > for > >an ISP environment. > > > If you want to be really cautious, start off at 6.0 > and ease your way down > to 5.0 after you are sure it's not mis-classifying > mail. Most people do > fine with the default, but some go higher or lower > depending on how they > handle tagged mail. > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
