On 2/20/2017 6:54 AM, aquilinux wrote:
Hi all, i noticed that a custom rule i created (in /etc/spamassassin/local.cf <http://local.cf>) is not applied in the regular postfix + spamassassin flow but it is when i pipe the mail to spamc or spamassassin.

1) normal flow with postfix

spamassassin    unix    -       n       n       -       30       pipe
flags=Rq user=spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -u ${recipient} -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender} ${recipient}

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on myserver
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
        autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Report:
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
        *      trust
* [108.59.11.79 listed in list.dnswl.org <http://list.dnswl.org>]


2) cat 1487115381.M993470P12484.ne254\,S\=4827\,W\=4936\:2\,S | spamc

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on myserver
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: *******
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.0 required=5.0 tests=MDSPAM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
        autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Report:
* -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
        *      trust
* [108.59.11.79 listed in list.dnswl.org <http://list.dnswl.org>]
        *  8.0 MDSPAM No description available.

3) spamassassin -t < 1487115381.M993470P12484.ne254\,S\=4827\,W\=4936\:2\,S

Content analysis details:   (7.0 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                            trust
[108.59.11.79 listed in list.dnswl.org <http://list.dnswl.org>]
 8.0 MDSPAM                 No description available.


What is happening here?

Thanks for helping.
Regards,

--
"Madness, like small fish, runs in hosts, in vast numbers of instances."

Nessuno mi pettina bene come il vento.R

Make sure you restart spamd after changing the rule, perhaps?

Reply via email to