Hi everyone,
I'm running SA 3.4.1 with Perl 5.22.0 .
It works quite well, but since a few weeks, it looks like my user_prefs
isn't taken into account by SA anymore. Let's show this by example:
There are *lots* of blacklist_from entries in there; one of them is:
blacklist_from *@neuronation.*
Today, I got another mail with the following (relevant) headers:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on
tango012.marc-richter.info
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.6 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1
From: NeuroNation <mai...@neuronation.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 06:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
Thus, this mail should get +100 for matching my blacklist_from entry.
But, as you can see, it isn't.
When I'm running "spamassassin --test-mode < my_maildir_file", I get
expected results:
spamassassin --test-mode < .maildir/cur/msg.SbGC\:2\,S
[...]
Inhaltsanalyse im Detail: (99.9 Punkte, 3.0 ben�tigt)
Pkte Regelname Beschreibung
---- ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL
was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[URIs: neuronation.de]
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[192.254.116.16 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
100 USER_IN_BLACKLIST From: address is in the user's black-list
0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
domains are different
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: Senderechner entspricht SPF-Datensatz
0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover
relay domain
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: Nachricht enth�lt HTML
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature
from author's
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK
signature
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
SA is started by postfix; in the master.cf of postfix there are these lines:
smtp inet n - n - - smtpd -o
content_filter=spamassassin
spamassassin
unix - n n - - pipe
flags=Rq user=spamfilter argv=/home/spamfilter/filter.sh -oi -f
${sender} ${recipient}
/home/spamfilter/filter.sh contains:
#!/bin/sh
# filter.sh
#
# This script redirects mail flagged as spam to a separate account
# You must first create a user account named "spamvac" to hold the
flagged mail
SENDMAIL="/usr/sbin/sendmail -i"
SPAMASSASSIN=/usr/bin/vendor_perl/spamc
COMMAND="$SENDMAIL $@"
USER=`echo $COMMAND | awk '{ print $NF }' | sed 's/@.*$//'`
NEW_COMMAND=`echo $COMMAND | awk '{ $6 = "spamfilter"; NF = 6; print }'`
# Exit codes from <sysexits.h>
EX_TEMPFAIL=75
EX_UNAVAILABLE=69
umask 077
OUTPUT="`mktemp /tmp/mailfilter.XXXXXXXXXX`"
if [ "$?" != 0 ]; then
/usr/bin/logger -s -p mail.warning -t filter "Unable to create
temporary file."
exit $EX_TEMPFAIL
fi
# Clean up when done or when aborting.
trap "rm -f $OUTPUT" EXIT SIGTERM
$SPAMASSASSIN -x -E -u $USER > $OUTPUT
return="$?"
if [ "$return" == 1 ]; then
$NEW_COMMAND < $OUTPUT
exit $?
elif [ "$return" != 0 ]; then
/usr/bin/logger -s -p mail.warning -t filter "Temporary
SpamAssassin failure (spamc return $return)"
exit $EX_TEMPFAIL
fi
$SENDMAIL "$@" < $OUTPUT
exit $?
SA should have access to my user_prefs; these are the groups for the
user "spamfilter":
tango012 ~ # groups spamfilter
users spamd
tango012 ~ #
The full path-permission to my user_prefs are:
ww@tango012 ~ $ ls -ld /home /home/Whitewolf_Fox
/home/Whitewolf_Fox/.spamassassin
/home/Whitewolf_Fox/.spamassassin/user_prefs
drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 23. Jul 10:36 /home
drwxr-xr-x 27 ww users 4096 9. Sep 08:32 /home/Whitewolf_Fox
drwxrwx--- 2 ww spamd 4096 9. Sep 08:32
/home/Whitewolf_Fox/.spamassassin
-rw-rw---- 1 ww spamd 8622 4. Sep 15:15
/home/Whitewolf_Fox/.spamassassin/user_prefs
ww@tango012 ~ $
Standing here, I'm out of ideas, since this looks all good to me.
Can somebody imagine what's wrong here?
Best regards,
Marc
