Dear Kavin,

Thanks for your reply.
I restarted the whole group of sendmail, MD, SA+...  several times. But didn't 
help.

What is the sequence of processing data ?
I assume the MTA ( I am using sendmail 8.15.1 ) is receiving the complete 
e-mail and afterwards mimedefang and spamassassin is processing the content.  
Isn't it ?
At that time the new inserted header line should be available.

Any ideas ?


Kind regards
Hans



From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgr...@pccc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 5:20 PM
To: MAYER Hans; 'users@spamassassin.apache.org'
Subject: Re: starttls verify=OK not recognized by rule

On 1/8/2015 10:41 AM, MAYER Hans wrote:
I am using SA in combination with mimedefang over many years very successfully. 
Thanks to the SA team for this great peace of software.
My environment SpamAssassin version 3.3.2 running on Perl version 5.12.4  on 
Sparc Solaris 11.2

My local rules are saved in /etc/mail/sa-mimedefang.cf
These days I tried to implement a new rule. It should trigger if within the 
received header line a text "verify=OK" can be found. This is the rule I made:

header LOCAL_VRY_OK             Received =~ /verify=ok/i
score LOCAL_VRY_OK              -2.0
describe LOCAL_VRY_OK           starttls_verify_is_OK

This rule is never triggered, even if this text is available. I know this 
because I add a X-Spam-Score header line to each e-mail, which lists all 
triggered rules.

I saved such an e-mail ( just the header ) and run:
spamassassin -x -p /etc/mail/sa-mimedefang.cf -D < email.txt

Here I can see, that this rule is activated. So the rule can't be written so 
bad.

I made several experiments but couldn't find a solution. My question why is it 
not recognized if executed "on the fly" by mimedefang for incoming e-mails ?
Not to say, that other local rules in my config file are executed properly.
Any hints and tips are welcome.
Have you restarted MD because most likely it is using the API and doesn't load 
the rules each time it runs but rather only at start (or when a child reaches 
the maximum execution limit)?

Reply via email to