Kenneth Porter skrev den 2023-12-06 08:25:
On 12/5/2023 10:57 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
mimedefang does not use spamd, you only need either spamassassin only
with spamd or mimedefang with spamassassin not running spamd
It's a small server so I can afford to run SA twice, once at the MTA
level through mimedefang (which can potentially reject egregious spam),
and once during delivery via procmail, which invokes spamc.
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.junc.eu
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.758
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[CLEAR_TEXT_SASL_AUTH=1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, KAM_NUMSUBJECT=0.5,
MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.1,
SPF_PASS=-0.1, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-0.2]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mx.junc.eu (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit
key)
header.d=comcastmailservice.net header.b="qcfLyXGV"; dkim=neutral
reason="invalid (public key: missing p= tag)" header.d=sewingwitch.com
header.b="IYT0Idc+"
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mxout1-he-de.apache.org (mxout1-he-de.apache.org
[95.216.194.37])
by mx.junc.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D48780DE5
for <m...@junc.eu>; Wed, 6 Dec 2023 08:25:45 +0100 (CET)
can't procmail use X-Spam-Flag ?
