[SURBL-Discuss] Is spamd broken?

John Andersen jsa at pen.homeip.net
Wed Jun 2 21:32:37 CEST 2004


On Wednesday 02 June 2004 20:22, David B Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, John Andersen wrote:
> > Folks here probably remember me whining about never once
> > seeing a surbl hit in my spam even after wadeing thru hundreds
> > of  spams.
> >
> > Several users gave me hints which I dutifully carried out (thanks guys).
> >  John Fawcett even sent me a spammer's web URI that was
> > guarenteed to trigger the Spamcop URI code and it did when fired
> > off manually with a command line like
> > /usr/bin/spamassassin -D -t < message-file > output-file 2>&1
> >
> > BUT STILL no Surbl hits.
> >
> > Just as a lark I remove the spamd line from my procmailrc and
> > replaced it with  /usr/bin/spamassassin -a
> >
> > AND IT WORKS?
> >
> > So, what's wrong with spamd?  Is it not capable of handling
> > anything but the basic rules?
>
> One question John,
> Do you -really- mean 'spamd' ?
> Are you actually trying to use 'spamd' in your procmailrc?

No, - Good catch, I was using spamc in procmailrc to send it
to spamd.

Spamassassin used directly seems a bit more resource intensive
as I can hear my disks ratteling away when mail arrives.  
Not that this matters much because the machine has nothing
to do most of the time.


-- 
_____________________________________
John Andersen


More information about the Discuss mailing list