On 2013-05-29 9:21, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 28.05.13 17:30, Simon Loewenthal wrote: > >> I looked at scoring for an email on an SA installation and noticed >> differences between hand scanning with spamc and scanning with spamd. My >> manually scanned email hit CLAMAV sane security, (ignore Bayes because the >> user had Bayes process this and then asked me about this), whilst this spamd >> delivered message did not hit CLAMAV_SANE The local.cf had a timeout of 250 >> seconds (default is 300). The clamav logs did not record any connection from >> SA during the spamd scan, yet did record a connection from spamc when I >> manually scanned the message so I think spamd skipped clamav scans. > > The only reason why spamc/spamd could give different results than > spamassassin is that they scan as different user, otherwise they should use > just the same configs. > >> Hand scanned with # cat $MESSAGEFILE | spamc -R -u spamd > > Here you instruct spamc to scan message as user spamd which means the > spamd's user preferences. > >> Results when scanned by spamd via postfix: > >> Tue May 28 14:17:55 2013 [20590] info: spamd: result: . 5 - >> BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_MESSAGE,JOB_OFFERS_PHASES,MTX_FAIL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_REMOTE_IMAGE >> >> scantime=18.9,size=145848,user=exam...@example.co.uk,uid=5002,required_score=6.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=38517,mid=<51a49fdb.908...@hsbc.co.uk>,bayes=0.500979,autolearn=no,shortcircuit=no > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > here postfix instructs spamd to scan as user "exam...@example.co.uk" > > what happens when you pass arguments "-u exam...@example.co.uk" to spamc, > instead of "-u spamd" ? Hi, Matus, I tried this and had the same results when I passed the -u exam...@example.co.uk -- "I decided that I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic." simon@klunky .co.uk / .org
