Tom Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I get errors about not having a ~.tmdarc file, which I don't want to
> have and don't see in the docs that it's required. I am trying to
> get this configured as a system level filter and not per user.
Either a ~/.tmdarc or a ~/.tmda/config is required. However, you
bring up an interesting point. If you've created an /etc/tmdarc for
your system, why should a user-specific file be required? This is
especially true for systems that have only "virtual" users, but even
for systems with shell users it should work.
I've added tmda-workers as a Cc to this message to get a discussion
going about this.
> Under procmail, I was thinking of putting this into /etc/procmailrc
> and having the return code of tmda-filter returned to postfix. I'm
> having limited success on the return exitcodes and no success on
> tmda-filter configuration.
>
>
> Can this be done as an entry in procmail?
>
> ---- /etc/procmail ----
> VERBOSE=yes
>
> :0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamc -f
>
> #:0:
> #* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> #/dev/null
>
> # Run the message through tmda-filter
> :0fw
^
TMDA is not a filter in the traditional UNIX sense. It does not write
the message to standard output and the 'f' flag will confuse procmail.
> | /usr/bin/tmda-filter
> #EXITCODE=75
> EXITCODE=$?
>
> DEFAULT=/dev/null
Once you remove the 'f' flag, procmail will believe that the
tmda-filter recipe is a "delivering recipe". I think that means that
you may be able to get rid of the DEFAULT= line, but I'm not sure
about that. I'm definitely *not* a procmail guru.
Tim
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
