[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spamassassin. CAREFUL ON UPGRADE



On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:13:48AM -0800, Cam Ellison wrote:
| * Brian Clark (brianj@fusionwerks.com) wrote:
| > * Cam Ellison (camellison@dccnet.com) [Feb 15. 2002 18:59]:
| > 
| <snip> 
| > > > I'm not using spamd, I'm firing off spamassassin with Procmail. But,
| > > > I'm setting required_hits in /etc/spamassassin.prefs
| > 
| > > I've got it set to 7 there, too. I'm not sure what's going on. I'd
| > > hate to have to remove it, because it is catching a lot of stuff.
| > 
| > What version are you using? I'm running 2.01.
|
| So am I.  

Wrong file, then.  Put your config in /etc/spamassassin/local.cf for
version 2.01.  (/etc/spamassassin.prefs was a template for creating
user configs in version 1.5)

| > Have you tired running spamassassin with the -p switch to specifiy your
| > prefs file to see if it picks that up correctly? 
|  
| Using it in conjunction with exim means not using that option, but
| simply running spamd, which is invoked for every message.  I think
| that is where the problem lies, but I cannot figure out which config
| file spamd uses, though I have changed everything I can find.

Using 'spamassassin' or the "spamc/spamd" combo works the same (aside
from system load).  In either case, for user configs, run the filter
as the user.  This is a bit difficult with exim, so I have it run a
user mail and use site-wide config only (and, since I'm the only user
at this site, it works just as well).  spamc has a supposedly
deprecated option "-u" to specify the user whose config should be
used.

Try putting your threshold level in /etc/spamassassin/local.cf,
restart spamd, and see if piping a message through spamc gives the
expected result.

-D

-- 

If Microsoft would build a car...
... Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You
would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the car
windows, shut it off, restart it, and reopen the windows before you
could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.



Reply to: