Your message dated Sat, 16 Aug 2025 13:34:27 +0100
with message-id
<CAJ3BuoTco10n7wsXSj=tp-tfjnqftc1rd8tvopzwy-jqbdo...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: logcheck: logging changes in spamd
has caused the Debian Bug report #778905,
regarding spamd rules
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
778905: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=778905
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: logcheck
Version: 1.3.15
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
spamd no longer suffixes "(closed before headers)" with "at /usr/sbin/spamd
line N"
Updated rule attached. This may also apply to other errors that I haven't been
able to test yet.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.8
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.14.5-x86-linode61 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages logcheck depends on:
ii adduser 3.113+nmu3
ii cron 3.0pl1-124
ii lockfile-progs 0.1.17
ii logtail 1.3.15
ii mime-construct 1.11
ii postfix [mail-transport-agent] 2.9.6-2
ii rsyslog [system-log-daemon] 5.8.11-3+deb7u2
Versions of packages logcheck recommends:
ii logcheck-database 1.3.15
Versions of packages logcheck suggests:
pn syslog-summary <none>
-- Configuration Files:
/etc/logcheck/logcheck.conf changed:
REPORTLEVEL="server"
SENDMAILTO="[email protected]"
FQDN=1
-- debconf information:
logcheck/changes:
* logcheck/install-note:
^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ spamd\[[0-9]+\]:( spamd:)? bad protocol:
header error: \(closed before headers\)( at /usr/sbin/spamd line 2001.)?$
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:02:30 +0100 Richard Lewis
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:57:15 +0000 Andrew Gallagher <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ spamd\[[0-9]+\]:( spamd:)? bad
> protocol: header error: \(closed before headers\)( at /usr/sbin/spamd
> line 2001.)?$
>
> This looks problematic because
> - if the suffix is no longer produced the rule should not include it as
> optional
> - why is 2001 hardcoded?
>
> If there is still interest in adding/updating rules we'd need an
> update to confirm what the rules should look like in 2024,
a year later: closing, as the suggested rule does not look correct. If
there is something to do for spamd in trixie, please reopen with a new
suggestion
--- End Message ---
