On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 03:12 -0700, Jason Marshall wrote:
> > Perhaps SA was too busy and those messages timed out and weren't scanned ?
> > Maybe those messages were greater than 250K (default max scan size) ?
>
> I have the same sort of problem, though it's on linux rather than windows.
> Several emails sneak through when the server is busy.
This most likely is not the same issue as the OP has,
> I write to spam quarantine, mail spool, and bayes databases over NFS, and
> sometimes the NFS server gets busy.
>
> I understand that spamassassin times out, but i'm running spamc with the
> -x option, which is supposed to, rather than pass the message through
> un-filtered, bounce it back to sendmail to try again. Is an appropriate
> return code not being set when spamc times out, maybe? Or does the -x
> option no longer work?
>
> >From the manpage:
>
> -x Disables the 'safe fallback' error-recovery method, which passes
> through the unaltered message if an error occurs. Instead, exit
> with an error code, and let the MTA queue up the mails for a retry
> later. See also "EXIT CODES".
>
> >From my .procmailrc:
procmail ist not an MTA, but an MDA (Mail Transport or Delivery Agent
respectively). procmail processes your mail and delivers it. According
to your receipts, correctly. ;)
> :0fw
> | /usr/local/bin/spamc -x
You're using spamc as a filter. There is no fallback receipt what to do
when the filter finishes unsuccessful (based on the exit code).
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: YES
> mail/spamfile
Filter finished unsuccessful, mail not altered, hence no such header. So
let's move on and check the next receipt...
> Am I missing something obvious? thanks anyone!
The fact that procmail is not an MTA and does not queue mails (see the
description of the spamc -x option above).
...guenther
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
