From nicolas at marchildon.net Mon Feb 10 04:54:42 2003 From: nicolas at marchildon.net (Nicolas Marchildon) Date: 09 Feb 2003 23:54:42 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Debian package of SA-Exim 2.2 Message-ID: <1044852882.28622.152.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> Hello all, I installed and started using the Debian package of exim4 with SA-Exim 2.1, where I discovered the bug with the big mails hanging SA-Exim (many thanks to Bruno for that 1.1M mail he received few mins after installing exim4, without which I would have been running a pretty buggy MTA for a while ;). So, I downloaded the debian tree and tried to run "debian/rules binary" on a few versions of exim (4.02, 4.04, 4.10, and the latest 4.12), with sa-exim right from CVS (2.2), but kept getting rejects from one patch or the other. For example, with exim 4.10, after having fixed debian/EDITME.diff, it started building exim, but failed here: /bin/rm -f auths.a ar cq auths.a b64encode.o b64decode.o call_pam.o call_pwcheck.o call_radius.o xtextencode.o xtextdecode.o get_data.o md5.o cram_md5.o plaintext.o pwcheck.o auth-spa.o spa.o ranlib auths.a /bin/rm -rf ../drtables.o make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10/build-Linux-i386/auths' make[2]: *** No rule to make target `lookups/lookups.a', needed by `exim'. Stop. make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10/build-Linux-i386' make[1]: *** [go] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10' make: *** [build] Error 2 Did anybody else tried to package SA-Exim 2.2 for Debian? I'd like to have some recommendations as to which versions of Exim and SA-Exim to use. Marc? I also noticed that the debian tree was not stored in CVS, which was probably just from lack of time. It would be great if that was in CVS if we are going to modify it (update EDITME.diff). It could simply be a separate module in the current sa-exim repository. Any help would be appreciated :) Nicolas -- OpenPGP public key: http://nicolas.marchildon.net/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint: 5E84 1089 0036 BB63 6997 232C 8FFB 777D 39D4 B2D4 Jabber ID: nicolas@marchildon.net http://www.jabber.org What have you done for freedom today? http://www.gnu.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030209/11f30f0f/attachment.bin From marc at merlins.org Mon Feb 10 06:09:43 2003 From: marc at merlins.org (Marc MERLIN) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:09:43 -0800 Subject: [SA-exim] Debian package of SA-Exim 2.2 In-Reply-To: <1044852882.28622.152.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> References: <1044852882.28622.152.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> Message-ID: <20030210060943.GG9537@merlins.org> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:54:42PM -0500, Nicolas Marchildon wrote: > Hello all, > > I installed and started using the Debian package of exim4 with SA-Exim > 2.1, where I discovered the bug with the big mails hanging SA-Exim (many > thanks to Bruno for that 1.1M mail he received few mins after installing > exim4, without which I would have been running a pretty buggy MTA for a > while ;). I am loathe to release sa-exim 2.3 without actually using it on my system, and I haven't had the time to work on exim 4.12 and sa-exim 2.3 lately. sa-exim 2.3 also has a minor bug with X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: if you have hundreds of receipients in a mail. sa-exim 2.2cvs fixes that, and I think you have that. > So, I downloaded the debian tree and tried to run "debian/rules binary" > on a few versions of exim (4.02, 4.04, 4.10, and the latest 4.12), with > sa-exim right from CVS (2.2), but kept getting rejects from one patch or > the other. Without seeing them, it's hard to tell. It should work just fine on 4.10, but it will fail on 4.12 because Philip included some of my exim patches. I'm mostly done with my 4.12 package, I just haven't had the time to actually install and test it. The 4.10 package should be fine, and you can compile sa-exim yourself and drop it in /usr/lib/exim4/ > For example, with exim 4.10, after having fixed debian/EDITME.diff, it > started building exim, but failed here: > > /bin/rm -f auths.a > ar cq auths.a b64encode.o b64decode.o call_pam.o call_pwcheck.o > call_radius.o xtextencode.o xtextdecode.o get_data.o md5.o cram_md5.o > plaintext.o pwcheck.o auth-spa.o spa.o > ranlib auths.a > /bin/rm -rf ../drtables.o > make[3]: Leaving directory > `/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10/build-Linux-i386/auths' > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `lookups/lookups.a', needed by Ah. That's a problem with the exim makefile It actually fails earlier, probably with postgres because debian changed/renamed the postgres packages recently. If you look up the build log, you'll see the real error. If you edit EDITME.diff to remove postgres support, I'm fairly sure the build will work. I'll try to get my exim4 4.12 package out soon, and I'll probably make the sa-exim package separate for the benefit of the exim4debian folks. > Did anybody else tried to package SA-Exim 2.2 for Debian? I'd like to > have some recommendations as to which versions of Exim and SA-Exim to > use. Marc? Sorry it's such a mess right now. It's both a problem with debian unstable for changing/renaming binaries, and me for not having the time to keep up with it. There was some discussion on the exim4debian list (people putting out a real exim4 package), and sa-exim will be packaged separately, which will alleviate some of these problems. > I also noticed that the debian tree was not stored in CVS, which was > probably just from lack of time. It would be great if that was in CVS if > we are going to modify it (update EDITME.diff). It could simply be a > separate module in the current sa-exim repository. Well, my exim4 debian package works, but it's not a work of art, and story its debian tree in the sa-exim CVS tree isn't really appropriate, they are technically separate. I'm sure than 75% of the sa-exim users don't use debian, a few don't even use linux, so an exim4 debian build tree wouldn't have it's place there :) Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030209/2c859ba1/attachment.bin From nicolas at marchildon.net Tue Feb 11 06:07:43 2003 From: nicolas at marchildon.net (Nicolas Marchildon) Date: 11 Feb 2003 01:07:43 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Debian package of SA-Exim 2.2 In-Reply-To: <20030210060943.GG9537@merlins.org> References: <1044852882.28622.152.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> <20030210060943.GG9537@merlins.org> Message-ID: <1044943667.7053.69.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 01:09, Marc MERLIN wrote: > I am loathe to release sa-exim 2.3 without actually using it on my system, > and I haven't had the time to work on exim 4.12 and sa-exim 2.3 lately. > sa-exim 2.3 also has a minor bug with X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: if you have > hundreds of receipients in a mail. > sa-exim 2.2cvs fixes that, and I think you have that. Well, I guess I can live with that :) > The 4.10 package should be fine, and you can compile sa-exim yourself > and drop it in /usr/lib/exim4/ > > > For example, with exim 4.10, after having fixed debian/EDITME.diff, it > > started building exim, but failed here: > > > > /bin/rm -f auths.a > > ar cq auths.a b64encode.o b64decode.o call_pam.o call_pwcheck.o > > call_radius.o xtextencode.o xtextdecode.o get_data.o md5.o cram_md5.o > > plaintext.o pwcheck.o auth-spa.o spa.o > > ranlib auths.a > > /bin/rm -rf ../drtables.o > > make[3]: Leaving directory > > `/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10/build-Linux-i386/auths' > > > > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `lookups/lookups.a', needed by > > Ah. > That's a problem with the exim makefile > It actually fails earlier, probably with postgres because debian > changed/renamed the postgres packages recently. > If you look up the build log, you'll see the real error. > > If you edit EDITME.diff to remove postgres support, I'm fairly sure the > build will work. Ok, I removed LOOKUP_PGSQL and it then failed in the same way with mysql, so I removed LOOKUP_MYSQL too. Then it failed with ldap, so I removed LOOKUP_LDAP. Then ld complained about missing -lldap, so I apt-get installed libldap2-dev (I already had libldap2). Then ld complained about -lmysqlclient, so I installed libmysqlclient10-dev. Then -lpq, so I installed postgresql-dev. Then, ha! something interesting ;) cd debian/sa-exim; /usr/bin/make make[1]: Entering directory `/home/nicolas/download/sa-exim' Building sa-exim-2.2.x-cvs.so gcc -I../../src -DDLOPEN_LOCAL_SCAN -DSPAMASSASSIN_CONF=\"/etc/exim/spamassassin.conf\" -DSPAMC_LOCATION=\"/usr/bin/spamc\" -O2 -Wall -shared -o sa-exim-2.2.x-cvs.so sa-exim.c sa-exim.c:31: local_scan.h: No such file or directory sa-exim.c:361: warning: #warning you should not worry about the "might be clobbered by longjmp", see source make[1]: *** [sa-exim-2.2.x-cvs.so] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nicolas/download/sa-exim' make: *** [build] Error 2 However: cortex:/home/nicolas/download/exim-4.10# find -name local_scan.h ./src/local_scan.h ./build-Linux-i386/local_scan.h I had symlinked debian inside exim-4.10 to ../debian, so instead, I copied debian inside the exim dir. And it worked :) I just had to install spamassassin on my test box, enable it in /etc/default/spamassassin, removed the -c option (dunno why, but it does not work otherwise), and successfully injected a big message into my system: 2003-02-11 00:41:59 18iTB9-0004VV-00 SA: SATruncBodyCond expand returned: '0' 2003-02-11 00:41:59 18iTB9-0004VV-00 SA: check skipped due to message size (374356 bytes) and SATruncBodyCond expanded to false What's planned about that size limitation? Will spamc ever raise its limit? Will they make the ending-mime-boundary check optional so I can safely enable SATruncBodyCond? > I'll try to get my exim4 4.12 package out soon, and I'll probably make the > sa-exim package separate for the benefit of the exim4debian folks. That would be great. I'm planning to spread the word about teergrubbing and general, and sa-exim in particular. I really like the idea of "playing" with spammers almost directly :) > There was some discussion on the exim4debian list (people putting out a real > exim4 package), and sa-exim will be packaged separately, which will > alleviate some of these problems. Glad to hear it! > > I also noticed that the debian tree was not stored in CVS, which was > > probably just from lack of time. It would be great if that was in CVS if > > we are going to modify it (update EDITME.diff). It could simply be a > > separate module in the current sa-exim repository. > > Well, my exim4 debian package works, but it's not a work of art, and story > its debian tree in the sa-exim CVS tree isn't really appropriate, they > are technically separate. > I'm sure than 75% of the sa-exim users don't use debian, a few don't even > use linux, so an exim4 debian build tree wouldn't have it's place there :) I was not talking about putting it in the exact same tree, but rather in a module, so that the regular "cvs checkout sa-exim" would not be affected, and debian people would have to run something like "cvs checkout sa-exim-deb". Anyway, now we have two more up-to-date debian packages: the one Lawrence made earlier, and mine. Because I removed a few options from EDITME, I'm not sure mine is the best one for others to play with. I guess I could put the options back and try to build again, as I probably installed all the required libraries anyway in the end. Hmm, I just realized Lawrence did *not* post his link to the mailing-list for his debian package of exim 4.10 and sa-exim cvs. So, here are mines, PGP signed (only useful if you trust my key in the first place ;) http://marchildon.net/sa-exim/ Nicolas -- OpenPGP public key: http://nicolas.marchildon.net/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint: 5E84 1089 0036 BB63 6997 232C 8FFB 777D 39D4 B2D4 Jabber ID: nicolas@marchildon.net http://www.jabber.org What have you done for freedom today? http://www.gnu.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030211/2d66ce45/attachment.bin From nicolas at marchildon.net Tue Feb 11 08:20:06 2003 From: nicolas at marchildon.net (Nicolas Marchildon) Date: 11 Feb 2003 03:20:06 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Debian package of SA-Exim 2.2 In-Reply-To: <1044943667.7053.69.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> References: <1044852882.28622.152.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> <20030210060943.GG9537@merlins.org> <1044943667.7053.69.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> Message-ID: <1044951610.18294.84.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 01:07, Nicolas Marchildon wrote: > Anyway, now we have two more up-to-date debian packages: the one > Lawrence made earlier, and mine. Because I removed a few options from > EDITME, I'm not sure mine is the best one for others to play with. I > guess I could put the options back and try to build again, as I probably > installed all the required libraries anyway in the end. I realized I had build my package for glibc 2.3 (unstable) while my target box runs sarge (testing), so I had to recompile it. At the same time, I re-enabled the LOOKUP_* variabled I had previously disabled, so this time my package should be cleaner. In case it can be useful to somebody, the box I used to compile had almost nothing installed, so I had to install all of the following packages for the build to succeed: dpkg-dev libdb3-dev xlibs-dev libperl-dev libpam0g-dev libxaw7-dev libldap2-dev libmysqlclient10-dev postgresql-dev > http://marchildon.net/sa-exim/ I added this new build in the testing directory, and moved the previous one to unstable. Nicolas -- OpenPGP public key: http://nicolas.marchildon.net/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint: 5E84 1089 0036 BB63 6997 232C 8FFB 777D 39D4 B2D4 Jabber ID: nicolas@marchildon.net http://www.jabber.org What have you done for freedom today? http://www.gnu.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030211/32120c15/attachment.bin From sdickenson at keyschool.org Thu Feb 13 14:49:10 2003 From: sdickenson at keyschool.org (Dickenson, Steven) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:49:10 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Envelope From verify Message-ID: <1DBA7B491604E94BBCCE5133069A5BB221FDCF@RINGO> Just started testing SA-Exim for spam filtering for my site. So far, it's working well. Kudos on such a great idea. Now, my question. I used Marc's Debian source tree to build a Woody package from the Exim 4.10 sources, and thus, I'm using his configuration file. I've marked some stuff out I don't need, but I'm worried about envelope sender verification. Since I'm filtering mail for some 500 users, I really don't want to wade through the logs and see which messages failed envelope sender verification, and then determine if the message was solicited or not. I've also noticed more than a few legitimate mails being bounce because the sending server doesn't accept empty envelope senders, even to one mail recipient (a big violation of RFC2821 section 3.7). So, what I'd like to do is to turn of envelope sender verification all together. However, I'm not that comfortable with Exim's ACL entries. I was messing with the configuration last night, and managed to end up temp rejecting everything coming in. Putting the configuration back solved the problem. Can anyone, Marc especially, tell me what lines to change/comment out of the exim4.conf.master file to disable these checks? Thanks, Steven --- Steven Dickenson Network Administrator The Key School, Annapolis Maryland From thomask at mtnns.net Mon Feb 17 08:16:59 2003 From: thomask at mtnns.net (Thomas Kinghorn) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:16:59 +0200 Subject: [SA-exim] attachment question...please assist Message-ID: <4625C59C329BC447AFFB52E7F8BFF27504FF91A0@protea.int.citec.net> I am using sa-exim with exim4.10 on a RH 8.0 platform. everything is running fine accept that ALL attachments are removed and the mail is not scanned. header is below: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_b12_33d9_35d3" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2003 06:40:31.0864 (UTC) FILETIME=[77B0EF80:01C2D64F] Sender's domain is listed in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org (Not supporting postmaster@domain) X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: thomask@mail-rbk.mtnns.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; Message bigger than SAmaxbody (256000) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_b12_33d9_35d3 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed modifications made in the local_scan.c have not worked. Any advise would be appreciated. Regards, Tom Kinghorn From jerry at cheesymouse.com Mon Feb 17 15:18:48 2003 From: jerry at cheesymouse.com (Jerry Rasmussen) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:18:48 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] attachment question...please assist Message-ID: There is a setting in /etc/exim/spamassassin.conf the setting is SAmaxbody. It basically says that if the email is over a certain size then do not scan for spam. This is a good thing other wise the server could get hung on large emails. I did however set the to 1 meg anything larger than that is probably not spam. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Kinghorn [mailto:thomask@mtnns.net]=20 Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:17 AM To: 'Sa-Exim@Lists. Merlins. Org (E-mail)' Subject: [SA-exim] attachment question...please assist I am using sa-exim with exim4.10 on a RH 8.0 platform. everything is running fine accept that ALL attachments are removed and the mail is not scanned. header is below: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_b12_33d9_35d3" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2003 06:40:31.0864 (UTC) FILETIME=3D[77B0EF80:01C2D64F] Sender's domain is listed in postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org (Not supporting postmaster@domain) X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: thomask@mail-rbk.mtnns.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; Message bigger than SAmaxbody (256000) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=3D_NextPart_000_b12_33d9_35d3 Content-Type: text/plain; format=3Dflowed modifications made in the local_scan.c have not worked. Any advise would be appreciated. Regards,=20 Tom Kinghorn _______________________________________________ SA-Exim mailing list SA-Exim@lists.merlins.org http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim From spammers at are.not.welcome.org Wed Feb 26 15:05:49 2003 From: spammers at are.not.welcome.org (Pierre-Luc Boucheron / UniGE (Email Address in signature)) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:05:49 +0100 Subject: [SA-exim] SpamAssassin 2.50 & SA-Exim 2.2 ==> problem ... Message-ID: <355190000.1046271949@lnx> Hi all, My goal was to move from SpamAssassin 2.44 to 2.50 on a system running Exim 4.12 with SA-Exim 2.2. As indicated in SpamAssassin 2.50 README file (http://www.spamassassin.org/dist/README) > >"Upgrade Notes >------------- > >Users of SpamAssassin versions earlier than 2.50 should note that the >default tagging behavior has changed. If an incoming message is tagged as >spam, instead of modifying the original message, SpamAssassin will create a >new report message and attach the original message as a message/rfc822 MIME >part (ensuring the original message is completely preserved and easier to >recover). If you do not want to modify the body of incoming spam, use the >"report_safe" option." > If I don't disable the new report message (report_safe 0) all messages detected as SPAM are delivered with an empty body (only the headers are present). My guest is that the new reporting mechanism (attach the original message as a message rfc822 MIME part) and SA-Exim 2.2 are in trouble. Can any one confirm that ??? Is there any work around ??? Thanks for responding to the list... -- Pierre-Luc Boucheron Tel: (+41 22) 705 7578 Division Informatique Secr.: (+41 22) 705 7568 University of Geneva Fax: (+41 22) 705 7986 Rue General-Dufour, 24 Email: U@D.C where: C=ch, 1211 Geneva 4 / Switzerland U=Pierre-Luc.Boucheron, D=unige From nicolas at marchildon.net Thu Feb 27 22:30:30 2003 From: nicolas at marchildon.net (Nicolas Marchildon) Date: 27 Feb 2003 17:30:30 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Not teergrubbing Message-ID: <1046385029.8335.40.camel@gold> I'm trying to activate teergrubbing on a mail server, but I don't see anything special happening even if I specify "SAteergrub: 10.0" in the config file. Could anyone having a working teergrubbing config show off his spamassassin.conf? That could help me figure out my problem much faster than playing with each and every little parameter. I'm on Debian, and using my own build from Marc's debian tree, available here: http://marchildon.net/sa-exim/testing/ This what my /etc/exim/spamassassin.conf contains (comments removed): SAEximDebug: 6 SAspamcpath: /usr/bin/spamc SAEximRunCond: ${if and {{def:sender_host_address} {!eq {$sender_host_address}{127.0.0.1}} {!eq {$h_X-SA-Do-Not-Run:}{Yes}} } {1}{0}} SAEximRejCond: ${if !eq {$h_X-SA-Do-Not-Rej:}{Yes} {1}{0}} SAmaxarchivebody: 20971520 SAerrmaxarchivebody: 1073741824 SAtimeoutsave: /var/spool/exim/SAtimeoutsave SAtimeoutSavCond: 1 SAerrorsave: /var/spool/exim/SAerrorsave SAerrorSavCond: 1 SAtemprejectonerror: 0 SAteergrub: 10.0 SAteergrubtime: 900 SAteergrubSavCond: 1 SAteergrubsave: /var/spool/exim/SAteergrub SAteergruboverwrite: 1 SAstallsendertime: 900 SAstallsenderSavCond: 1 SAstallsendersave: /var/spool/exim/SAstallsender SAstallsenderoverwrite: 1 SAdevnullSavCond: 1 SAdevnullsave: /var/spool/exim/SAdevnull SApermrejectSavCond: 1 SApermrejectsave: /var/spool/exim/SApermreject SAtemprejectSavCond: 1 SAtemprejectsave: /var/spool/exim/SAtempreject SAtemprejectoverwrite: 1 SAspamacceptsave: /var/spool/exim/SAspamaccept SAspamacceptSavCond: 0 SAnotspamsave: /var/spool/exim/SAnotspam SAnotspamSavCond: 0 This is what my logs look like when I receive a message with a score higher than 10: SA: Debug enabled, reading config from file /etc/exim/spamassassin.conf SA: config read SAspamcpath = /usr/bin/spamc SA: config read SAEximRunCond = ${if and {{def:sender_host_address} {!eq {$sender_host_address}{127.0.0.1}} {!eq {$h_X-SA-Do-Not-Run:}{Yes}} } {1}{0}} SA: config read SAEximRejCond = ${if !eq {$h_X-SA-Do-Not-Rej:}{Yes} {1}{0}} SA: config read SAmaxarchivebody = 20971520 SA: config read SAerrmaxarchivebody = 1073741824 SA: config read SAtimeoutsave = /var/spool/exim/SAtimeoutsave SA: config read SAtimeoutSavCond = 1 SA: config read SAerrorsave = /var/spool/exim/SAerrorsave SA: config read SAerrorSavCond = 1 SA: config read SAtemprejectonerror = 0 SA: config read SAstallsendertime = 900 SA: config read SAstallsenderSavCond = 1 SA: config read SAstallsendersave = /var/spool/exim/SAstallsender SA: config read SAstallsenderoverwrite = 1 SA: config read SAdevnullSavCond = 1 SA: config read SAdevnullsave = /var/spool/exim/SAdevnull SA: config read SApermrejectSavCond = 1 SA: config read SApermrejectsave = /var/spool/exim/SApermreject SA: config read SAtemprejectSavCond = 1 SA: config read SAtemprejectsave = /var/spool/exim/SAtempreject SA: config read SAtemprejectoverwrite = 1 SA: config read SAspamacceptsave = /var/spool/exim/SAspamaccept SA: config read SAspamacceptSavCond = 0 SA: config read SAnotspamsave = /var/spool/exim/SAnotspam SA: config read SAnotspamSavCond = 0 SA: Message body is about 44593 bytes and the initial offset is 19 SA: SAEximRunCond expand returned: '1' SA: check succeeded, running spamc SA: fed spam to spamc, reading result SA: Setting timeout of 240 secs before reading from spamc SA: spamc read: Received: from [206.40.229.124] (port=58009 helo=sm24.localdomain) SA: spamc read: by marchildon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10-mm1 #1 (Debian)) SA: spamc read: id 18oTVW-0003H0-00 SA: spamc read: for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:15:51 -0500 SA: spamc read: Received: from unknown SA: spamc read: Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:41:57 -0700 (MST) SA: spamc read: Message-Id: <200302271841.h1RIfvFJ002353@sm24.localdomain> SA: Message-Id received and cleaned as: 200302271841.h1RIfvFJ002353@sm24.localdomain SA: spamc read: Comments: Received: from Pb<6?4@CoD:7J]4@>|C6?=22?o96E?6E]?=Nz B SA: spamc read: Received: from Jx!9J==:D$E6:?36C8o4D]4@>|D2?5DoD2?5D]4@>]>I|CA3FC5Do2@=]4@>|>2?EC:o42=]GD?=]?6E]:?|>@>@449:b`fo86@4:E:6D]4@];A|@=:G6C]28:4]?6E|C@3:?\>oH63]56|?C5=E?o:4B>2:=]4@>|?:4@=2Do>2C49:=5@?]?6E|D:>@?0368:?oDDDD]8@FG]B4]42|:??<66A6Co=:89E9@FD6C6EC62E]4@>Tv T SA: spamc read: Received: from Tu2DoH63]56|E:H@EoJ29@@]4@>|>2KK@oCKF]F?:K9]49|>:4926=o:2?D@?]7D?6E]4@]F<|;F?2BF:=EKo2@=]4@>|DE2Jo>2DE72C>:??]4@>Tq R SA: spamc read: Received: from AcDF<:J2<:g`F|z@?2z2:o2@=]4@>|?@@<6CDoC@4<6E>2:=]4@>|F<4@EE286\DF3D4C:36o@?6=:DE]4@>|:??<66A6Co:??2E32E9]4@>|;62?]6?D49o4:]C649]=FTz G SA: spamc read: Received: from RmAF3oA:6556?6K]7C|<2:D6Co2FE]66]6E9K]49|C6D6CG2E:@?DoE96\>2C=3@C@F89]4@]?K|K529:J2o56=b]GD?=]?6E]:?|D96==oH:=E@?3FC?72C>]F\?6E]4@>|D@7:26<36C8oJ29@@]D6Mr Z SA: spamc read: Received: from NrAC:6>6CoCK]F?:\A@ED52>]56|$]|F9:5:?ou#(]#&v]}{|325]H63>2DE6Co>2C<@:D6]56]255|=28F=92Do5@C62]4@]K2|>2:=o24256>:4E@FCD]4@>|=:DD2C57@F?52E:@?o6:C4@>]?6ETT T SA: spamc read: Received: from NzCJ`g_doG:2446DD]?6E|DE6A96?C625o7@C6DE:?D:89E]?D]42|$=Gu@Iu2C>o2@=]4@>|D:8CF?o<2FAE9:?8]:D|}xztu#tzo2@=]4@>|}@G6=w@FD6o?@G6=9@FD6]4@>Rb Y SA: spamc read: Received: from PQA2K6o586]:?A6]3C|?2?:]>Do8>I]?6E|K232=29@>6o2C?6E]4@>]2C|HDA0:?7@\@H?6CoJ29@@8C@FAD]4@>|<2D9:o?57]GD?=]?6E]:?Rz M SA: spamc read: Errors: JewW-8HK3_vDvCfs@regal.com SA: spamc read: From: Important Message! SA: spamc read: To: pCYHbOMX SA: spamc read: Subject: *****SPAM***** Your Bed and Breakfast web site is NOT being SEEN! SA: spamc, while parsing header Subject, read MIME-Version: 1.0 SA: spamc pieced up Subject as: 'Subject: *****SPAM***** Your Bed and Breakfast web site is NOT being SEEN!' SA: removing old copy of header 'Subject: Your Bed and Breakfast web site is NOT being SEEN! ' and replacing with new one: 'Subject: *****SPAM***** Your Bed and Breakfast web site is NOT being SEEN! ' SA: spamc read: MIME-Version: 1.0 SA: spamc read: Content-Type: text/plain SA: spamc, while parsing header Content-Type, read Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SA: spamc pieced up Content-Type as: 'Content-Type: text/plain' SA: removing old copy of header 'Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii ' and replacing with new one: 'Content-Type: text/plain ' SA: spamc read: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SA: spamc, while parsing header Content-Transfer-Encoding, read X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=11.1 required=5.0 SA: spamc pieced up Content-Transfer-Encoding as: 'Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit' SA: removing old copy of header 'Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ' and replacing with new one: 'Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ' SA: spamc read: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=11.1 required=5.0 SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read tests=BIG_FONT,CLICK_BELOW,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS, SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read HTML_50_70,HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONT_COLOR_GREEN, SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED,HTML_FONT_COLOR_UNSAFE, SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read HTML_FONT_COLOR_YELLOW,HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD, SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read HTML_WITH_BGCOLOR,MONEY_BACK,NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,ONLY_COST, SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read SEARCH_ENGINE_PROMO,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,WEIRD_PORT SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read version=2.43 SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Status, read X-Spam-Flag: YES SA: spamc pieced up X-Spam-Status as: 'X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=11.1 required=5.0 tests=BIG_FONT,CLICK_BELOW,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS, HTML_50_70,HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE,HTML_FONT_COLOR_GREEN, HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED,HTML_FONT_COLOR_UNSAFE, HTML_FONT_COLOR_YELLOW,HTML_FONT_FACE_ODD, HTML_WITH_BGCOLOR,MONEY_BACK,NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,ONLY_COST, SEARCH_ENGINE_PROMO,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,WEIRD_PORT version=2.43' SA: Could not find old spamstatus format, trying new one... SA: Read from X-Spam-Status: hits=11.1 required=5.0 SA: spamc read: X-Spam-Flag: YES SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Flag, read X-Spam-Level: *********** SA: spamc pieced up X-Spam-Flag as: 'X-Spam-Flag: YES' SA: Is Spam read from X-Spam-Flag: 1 SA: spamc read: X-Spam-Level: *********** SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Level, read X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.43 (1.115.2.20-2002-10-15-exp) SA: spamc pieced up X-Spam-Level as: 'X-Spam-Level: ***********' SA: spamc read: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.43 (1.115.2.20-2002-10-15-exp) SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Checker-Version, read X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii SA: spamc pieced up X-Spam-Checker-Version as: 'X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.43 (1.115.2.20-2002-10-15-exp)' SA: spamc read: X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii SA: spamc, while parsing header X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type, read SA: spamc pieced up X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type as: 'X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii' SA: spamc read: SA: spamc read got newline, end of headers SA: SAEximRejCond expand returned: '1' SA: savemail condition expand returned: '0' SA: savemail condition expanded to false, not saving message to disk SA: Flagged as Spam but accepted: Score hits=11.1 required=5.0 (scanned in 5/5 secs) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030227/e7ce2f91/attachment.bin From marc at merlins.org Thu Feb 27 22:39:26 2003 From: marc at merlins.org (Marc MERLIN) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:39:26 -0800 Subject: [SA-exim] Not teergrubbing In-Reply-To: <1046385029.8335.40.camel@gold> References: <1046385029.8335.40.camel@gold> Message-ID: <20030227223926.GR15393@merlins.org> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:30:30PM -0500, Nicolas Marchildon wrote: > I'm trying to activate teergrubbing on a mail server, but I don't see > anything special happening even if I specify "SAteergrub: 10.0" in the > config file. If you look at the debug that you posted, it shows that Sa-Exim doesn't read the teergrub variables. That's because I mispelled them and they were renamed as teergrube. Add an 'e' and you should be ok. Also, please let me know if you found the config file as a current file on my web site, I would then need to update it. Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems & security .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030227/2eb7571c/attachment.bin From nicolas at marchildon.net Fri Feb 28 05:25:00 2003 From: nicolas at marchildon.net (Nicolas Marchildon) Date: 28 Feb 2003 00:25:00 -0500 Subject: [SA-exim] Not teergrubbing In-Reply-To: <20030227223926.GR15393@merlins.org> References: <1046385029.8335.40.camel@gold> <20030227223926.GR15393@merlins.org> Message-ID: <1046409900.18040.78.camel@cortex.marchildon.net> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 17:39, Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:30:30PM -0500, Nicolas Marchildon wrote: > > I'm trying to activate teergrubbing on a mail server, but I don't see > > anything special happening even if I specify "SAteergrub: 10.0" in the > > config file. > > If you look at the debug that you posted, it shows that Sa-Exim doesn't read > the teergrub variables. That's because I mispelled them and they were > renamed as teergrube. > Add an 'e' and you should be ok. Well, that was an easy one ;) Thanks a lot! > Also, please let me know if you found the config file as a current file on > my web site, I would then need to update it. Sorry, I really can't remember where my conf file comes from. But I re-downloaded your Debian tree, and spamassassin.conf really has the bad spelling, so I guess my file comes from it: http://marc.merlins.org/linux/exim/files/exim4-debiantree.tar.gz That means my own Debian package also has the "bug", but I don't really want to go through re-generating it, as I don't remember well exactly what I did and don't have lots of time to spend on it. Nicolas -- OpenPGP public key: http://nicolas.marchildon.net/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint: 5E84 1089 0036 BB63 6997 232C 8FFB 777D 39D4 B2D4 Jabber ID: nicolas@marchildon.net http://www.jabber.org What have you done for freedom today? http://www.gnu.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.merlins.org/archives/sa-exim/attachments/20030228/cfb4e5a4/attachment.bin From brooksw at webknowledge.com Fri Feb 28 22:42:16 2003 From: brooksw at webknowledge.com (W. E. Brooks) Date: 28 Feb 2003 15:42:16 -0700 Subject: [SA-exim] SpamAssassin 2.50 & SA-Exim 2.2 ==> problem ... Message-ID: <1046472136.4095.16.camel@mandrake.webknowledge.com> I was able to move from SpamAssassin 2.43 to SpamAssassin 2.50 on a system running Exim 4.12 and SA-Exim 2.2 without any problems. I did not change the "report_safe" option from it's default value. I also saw the note in the README for SpamAssassin 2.50 regarding the change in "default tagging behavior". It caused me some concern. However, I have not noticed any problems after upgrading to SpamAssassin 2.50. -- W. E. Brooks From lawrence at the-penguin.otak.com Fri Feb 28 22:52:10 2003 From: lawrence at the-penguin.otak.com (Lawrence Walton) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:52:10 -0800 Subject: [SA-exim] SpamAssassin 2.50 & SA-Exim 2.2 ==> problem ... In-Reply-To: <1046472136.4095.16.camel@mandrake.webknowledge.com> References: <1046472136.4095.16.camel@mandrake.webknowledge.com> Message-ID: <20030228225210.GA13520@the-penguin.otak.com> W. E. Brooks [brooksw@webknowledge.com] wrote: > I was able to move from SpamAssassin 2.43 to SpamAssassin 2.50 on a > system running Exim 4.12 and SA-Exim 2.2 without any problems. I did not > change the "report_safe" option from it's default value. > > I also saw the note in the README for SpamAssassin 2.50 regarding the > change in "default tagging behavior". It caused me some concern. > However, I have not noticed any problems after upgrading to SpamAssassin > 2.50. > > -- > W. E. Brooks > I had some strange messeges, after the upgrade SMTP protocol violation: synchronization error (next input sent too soon): rejected "HELO jwnqxho" H=[200.68.155.53] I restarted with this "report_safe 0" and everything seems to work very well. I'm _VERY_ interested to see if Bayesian spam analysis, works. -- *--* Mail: lawrence@otak.com *--* Voice: 425.739.4247 *--* Fax: 425.827.9577 *--* HTTP://the-penguin.otak.com/~lawrence/ -------------------------------------- - - - - - - O t a k i n c . - - - - -