Hi Olivier,
thanks for your ideas, they look reasonable.
But I think it might be not the solution, since
1. my spamd runs as spamd:spamd and my home-dirs/-files have rw
permissions for at least group spamd:
ww@tango012 ~ $ ls -ald .spamassassin .spamassassin/*
drwxrwx--- 2 ww spamd 4096 11. Sep 11:40 .spamassassin
-rw-rw---- 1 ww spamd 10387456 27. Aug 14:19 .spamassassin/auto-whitelist
-rw------- 1 spamd spamd 6 27. Aug 14:19
.spamassassin/auto-whitelist.mutex
-rw-rw---- 1 ww spamd 8667 11. Sep 11:40 .spamassassin/user_prefs
ww@tango012 ~ $
2. I nevertheless tried to run spamd as root and this is what it results in:
spamd: cannot run as nonexistent user or root with -u option
Best regards,
Marc
Am 11.09.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Olivier Nicole:
Marc Richter <m...@marc-richter.info> writes:
Hi KAM,
why not - spamassassin seems to respect the user_prefs file. Of course
I'd like to stick ti spamc, but if there is no solution for the
user_prefs - issue, it fits only half of my needs.
Sorry for jumping in the conversation, I have not read all the messages,
but if I remember well, un order for spamc -u to work, you need to run
spamd as high priviledged user.
For security reasons, user's .spamassassin directory is readble only by
that user. Spamc -u tells spamd to become that user, but spamd must be
allowed by the system to change user, that means spamd must be running
as root to begin with.
So I would say:
- start spamd as root
- spamc -u user
- or become user and spamassassin
All this is from memory, because I use SA though amavisd nowdays.
Best regards,
Olivier
Best regard,
Marc
Am 11.09.2015 um 11:47 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail:
Spamc exists to save startup compilation time.
If you have real users and use procmail then spamc will be much faster and pass
along the username.
If you use a glue or have virtual users, you might need logic to call spamc or
spamassassin with a desired username. But for me, I would anticipate switching
will just make things slower and not solve the issue.
Regards,
KAM
On September 11, 2015 5:35:12 AM AST, Marc Richter <m...@marc-richter.info>
wrote:
Guess this means that I have to run "spamassassin" instead of spamc,
don't I?
I do not understand the reason for spamc to exist then
