No, asshole. I fixed it by removing postgrey from the equation.
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 28.07.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Ryan Coleman:
>> Doesn’t matter. I killed it. It’s gone.
>>
>> I have eliminated postgrey from the installation and things are back to
>> “normal”
>
> in other words you burried a problem by remove something instead fix the
> reason while on every sane setup greylisting comes long before any content
> scanner
>
>>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Bill Cole
>>> <sausers-20150...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 15:50, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>>>
>>>> strange... how do you run spamassassin from postfix?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In master.cf like everyone else…
>>>
>>> Um, not so much...
>>>
>>>> smtp inet n - - - - smtpd
>>>> -o content_filter=spamassassin
>>> [...]
>>>> spamassassin unix - n n - - pipe
>>>> user=spamd argv=/usr/bin/spamc -f -e /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -f ${sender}
>>>> ${recipient}
>>>
>>> FWIW, that's probably roughly the 5th most common way to integrate Postfix
>>> and SpamAssassin. I'd guess that amavisd-new as a before-queue filter is
>>> 1st, followed by amavisd-new as an after-queue filter, spamass-milter, and
>>> MIMEDefang (also a milter). There are pros and cons for every approach but
>>> a 'pipe' content_filter using spamc's '-e' option probably has the fewest
>>> "pros" and has the problems described at
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/IntegratedSpamdInPostfix. Also, you
>>> probably want 'flags=Rq' in the pipe arguments and there is no '-f'
>>> argument documented for spamc, so that should probably go unless you know
>>> something the spamc man page doesn't...
>>>
>>> A possible cause of your trouble could be spamc not knowing the correct way
>>> to talk to spamd. In that case, the '-e' option causes spamc to bypass
>>> spamd and just pipe its input to the given command, exiting with a
>>> successful return code unless that command fails. This seems to match what
>>> you're describing.
>
>
