Discussion:
[SA-exim] undefined vars in Greylisting.pm
John Bro
2007-01-22 22:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Hello all,

I just joined, because I just started using SA-Exim and spamd,
and greylisting on my home mail server (Debian Etch)
(where I'm the only user), and although it seems to be performing
quite nicely (i.e. spam is being blocked, greylisted messages get
through when they should, or get dumped when they're spam)...

There are a couple complaints (documented below) that have me
stumped. Each message produces these complaints from perl:


Jan 22 21:02:03 jhbro spamd[3013]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN26> line 57.

Jan 22 21:02:03 jhbro spamd[3013]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Greylisting.pm line 177,
<GEN26> line 57.


and each time, the same 2 messages 2 seconds later.
The lines of Greylisting.pm in question are as follows:

172: $connectip =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/;
173: my ($ipbyte1, $ipbyte2, $ipbyte3, $ipbyte4) = ($1, $2, $3, $4);
174: my $ipdir1 = "$option{'dir'}/$ipbyte1";
175: # --------------------------
176: my $ipdir2 = "$ipdir1/$ipbyte2";
177: my $ipdir3 = "$ipdir2/$ipbyte3";

So clearly, something in the regexp coming up empty.
Also, sometimes, (although not at exactly the same time)
I see this problem:

Jan 22 21:25:59 jhbro spamd[3013]: Couldn't get Connecting IP
header X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP for message
<***@smtp2.dmz.local>,
skipping greylisting call

The absence of a connectip/Connect-IP seems to relate the two
complaints.. but I see headers for SA-Exim-Connect-IP in the message,
and the Received headers contain IP numbers.. I don't get it.


Finally, one more completely independent issue:
(that I probably should have put in a separate message..

I can't figure out how to configure things such that rejected
messages do not generate an attempt to bounce to the (? always)
bogus From: address. It would appear that I am accepting messages
rather than rejecting them at SMTP time, and thus exim things it has
to send back an "undeliverable". Where have I enabled this??

For the moment it causes no serious problems because I can't figure
out how to get properly authenticated to my smarthost with exim
either!

(while. pine talks authenticated esmtps directly to the smarthost
with no problems).

So, when exim4 tries to bounce a message, the smarthost refuses, so
no innocent bystanders are getting hit with collateral spam.

But, the day I figure out the auth problem,
I'll need a solution to the bouncing problem.

If somebody can help me figure this stuff out, I'll be very grateful.


- John
José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
2007-01-26 19:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

The message "SA: Action: spamd took more than 240 secs to run, accepting message" started to appears yesterday in the mainlog, but I don't know what do I have to check to eliminate this issue. I've restarted exim and updated spamassasin and still showing the message.

Somebody can give me a clue?

TIA

Jesus Gutierrez
Jasper Capel
2007-01-26 19:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Have you checked /var/log/maillog for SpamAssassin output? Does the
"spamassassin --lint -D" command give you any useful leads?

Kind regards,

Jasper Capel
Post by José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
Hi,
The message "SA: Action: spamd took more than 240 secs to run,
accepting message" started to appears yesterday in the mainlog, but I
don't know what do I have to check to eliminate this issue. I've
restarted exim and updated spamassasin and still showing the message.
Somebody can give me a clue?
TIA
Jesus Gutierrez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
SA-Exim mailing list
http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim
José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
2007-01-26 20:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Running spamassassin --lint -D The only suspicious I have is the following:

dbg: bayes: not available for scanning, only 0 spam(s) in bayes DB < 200

I this an error on my system? or I get this message because I run the test with the root user instead of the Debian-exim user?

BTW the bayes files whitelist is 10mb and I have almost 20 expire files around 5mb, are these size files normal?

I have to tell my system run on a Celeron 300mhz 96mb ram, I know is small but it was working fine for near 2 years until yersterday.

TIA


-----Mensaje original-----
De: sa-exim-bounces+jgtez=***@lists.merlins.org
[mailto:sa-exim-bounces+jgtez=***@lists.merlins.org]En
nombre de Jasper Capel
Enviado el: Viernes, 26 de Enero de 2007 01:25 p.m.
Para: sa-***@lists.merlins.org
Asunto: Re: [SA-exim] SA: Action: spamd took more than ...


Have you checked /var/log/maillog for SpamAssassin output? Does the
"spamassassin --lint -D" command give you any useful leads?

Kind regards,

Jasper Capel
Post by José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
Hi,
The message "SA: Action: spamd took more than 240 secs to run,
accepting message" started to appears yesterday in the mainlog, but I
don't know what do I have to check to eliminate this issue. I've
restarted exim and updated spamassasin and still showing the message.
Somebody can give me a clue?
TIA
Jesus Gutierrez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
SA-Exim mailing list
http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-06 21:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
dbg: bayes: not available for scanning, only 0 spam(s) in bayes DB < 200
I this an error on my system? or I get this message because I run the test with the root user instead of the Debian-exim user?
BTW the bayes files whitelist is 10mb and I have almost 20 expire files around 5mb, are these size files normal?
I have to tell my system run on a Celeron 300mhz 96mb ram, I know is small but it was working fine for near 2 years until yersterday.
Basically SA-Exim is telling you that SA is telling too long to run, so
it can't wait forever.
Unfortunately SA is not time bound, and I believe the SA guys removed
the time profiling code I put in there, because it made SA slightly
slower.
My recommendation to you is to go on the spamassassin-users list, and
work out with them why SA is taking so long to run for you

Good luck,
Marc
Post by José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
-----Mensaje original-----
nombre de Jasper Capel
Enviado el: Viernes, 26 de Enero de 2007 01:25 p.m.
Asunto: Re: [SA-exim] SA: Action: spamd took more than ...
Have you checked /var/log/maillog for SpamAssassin output? Does the
"spamassassin --lint -D" command give you any useful leads?
Kind regards,
Jasper Capel
Post by José de Jesús Gutiérrez Ramírez
Hi,
The message "SA: Action: spamd took more than 240 secs to run,
accepting message" started to appears yesterday in the mainlog, but I
don't know what do I have to check to eliminate this issue. I've
restarted exim and updated spamassasin and still showing the message.
Somebody can give me a clue?
TIA
Jesus Gutierrez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
SA-Exim mailing list
http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim
_______________________________________________
SA-Exim mailing list
http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim
_______________________________________________
SA-Exim mailing list
http://lists.merlins.org/lists/listinfo/sa-exim
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-06 22:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bro
Hello all,
I just joined, because I just started using SA-Exim and spamd,
and greylisting on my home mail server (Debian Etch)
(where I'm the only user), and although it seems to be performing
quite nicely (i.e. spam is being blocked, greylisted messages get
through when they should, or get dumped when they're spam)...
There are a couple complaints (documented below) that have me
Jan 22 21:02:03 jhbro spamd[3013]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN26> line 57.
Jan 22 21:02:03 jhbro spamd[3013]: Use of uninitialized value in
concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Greylisting.pm line 177,
<GEN26> line 57.
and each time, the same 2 messages 2 seconds later.
172: $connectip =~ /(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)/;
173: my ($ipbyte1, $ipbyte2, $ipbyte3, $ipbyte4) = ($1, $2, $3, $4);
174: my $ipdir1 = "$option{'dir'}/$ipbyte1";
175: # --------------------------
176: my $ipdir2 = "$ipdir1/$ipbyte2";
177: my $ipdir3 = "$ipdir2/$ipbyte3";
Mmmh, that's not supposed to happen, it means that you got half an IP,
or something of the sort. Is there a chance you can get it to print out
what the value of $connectip is when this happens?

Actually, I should have the code say
warn "Bad connectip: $connectip\n" if (not defined ($ipbyte1) or not defined ($ipbyte2) or not defined ($ipbyte3) or not defined ($ipbyte4));
Right after line 173

Do you mind adding that?
Post by John Bro
So clearly, something in the regexp coming up empty.
Also, sometimes, (although not at exactly the same time)
Jan 22 21:25:59 jhbro spamd[3013]: Couldn't get Connecting IP
header X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP for message
skipping greylisting call
Yeah, that's typically because you run sa-exim on a locally generated
message that doesn't have a connecting IP.
Post by John Bro
The absence of a connectip/Connect-IP seems to relate the two
complaints.. but I see headers for SA-Exim-Connect-IP in the message,
and the Received headers contain IP numbers.. I don't get it.
Uh?
Ok, can you print those headers from inside the Greylisting.pm code
right before you get the warning (around line 101)?
Post by John Bro
I can't figure out how to configure things such that rejected
messages do not generate an attempt to bounce to the (? always)
bogus From: address. It would appear that I am accepting messages
rather than rejecting them at SMTP time, and thus exim things it has
to send back an "undeliverable". Where have I enabled this??
Mmmh, the only reason I can think for that is that you aren't running
sa-exim on your outside MX, but you are accepting the message on some
outside server, and then forwarding to an inside machine that runs
sa-exim.
Otherwise, there is no exim setting that I can think of, sa-exim tells
exim to refuse the mail at smtp time, so exim should not generate a
bounce message for it.

I hope this helps.

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
John Bro
2007-02-07 12:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Mark,

Below are a bunch of examples (edited for redundancy and verbosity)
showing that sometimes the string that is supposed to be an IP address
is a (local) email address (originating locally too),
leaving regexes $2, $3, $4 quite empty.

Other times it's 127.0.0.1 (for the same message?)
and still other times it's a real external IP number.

Yet there are always complaints about unitialized values anyway.

BAD CONNECTIP l.175 is the warn() I added which only appears when
the "connectip" is an email address instead of an ip number.
So the other complaints are somehow at other steps in the process..

And there are more problems with:

Couldn't get Connecting IP header [ X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message
<blablabla> skipping greylisting call

but this appears at a completely different step in the SA/greylisting
routines.

Some of this may be related to the fact that I am using
fetchmail to get mail from outside servers and hand it off to my
exim4.. but I don't understand *how* it's related (or what I'm
going to be able to do about it.. ) kinda lost actually..

Anyway, here's more logs: I'm sure they're more than you need, but
there they are..

thanks,
j.

===========================================================================
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
176, <GEN63> line 40.
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961]: connectip: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: , 3: ,
4: at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN63> line 40.
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
178, <GEN63> line 40.
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961] last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961] BAD CONNECTIP l.176: 1: ***@jhbro.fr,
2: , 3: , 4:
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
181, <GEN63> line 40.
Feb 7 03:02:02 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
182, <GEN63> line 40.

Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
176, <GEN67> line 65.
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: connectip: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: , 3: ,
4: at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN67> line 65.
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
178, <GEN67> line 65.
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: BAD CONNECTIP l.176: 1: ***@jhbro.fr,
2: , 3: , 4:
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
181, <GEN67> line 65.
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27961]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line
182, <GEN67> line 65.
Feb 7 03:02:03 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN58> line 96.


Feb 7 03:10:33 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <foo>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:10:37 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN62> line 118.

Feb 7 03:25:43 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <foo>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:25:47 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN65> line 118.

Feb 7 03:40:54 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <foo>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:40:58 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN68> line 118.

Feb 7 03:46:06 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <blurf>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:46:09 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 64, 2: 233, 3: 166, 4: 179
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN71> line 99.
Feb 7 03:46:13 jhbro spamd[27961]: connectip: 1: 64, 2: 233, 3: 166, 4: 179
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN83> line 16077.
Feb 7 03:46:16 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN75> line 124.

Feb 7 03:56:04 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <foo>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:56:08 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN79> line 118.

Feb 7 03:57:43 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <bar>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 03:57:45 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 64, 2: 233, 3: 184, 4: 227
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN82> line 71.
Feb 7 03:57:47 jhbro spamd[27961]: connectip: 1: 64, 2: 233, 3: 184, 4: 227
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN94> line 88.
Feb 7 03:57:49 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN86> line 97.

Feb 7 04:00:24 jhbro spamd[27961]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message <baz>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 04:00:26 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 66, 2: 249, 3: 82, 4: 233
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN90> line 85.
Feb 7 04:00:29 jhbro spamd[27961]: connectip: 1: 66, 2: 249, 3: 82, 4: 233
at Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN102> line 102.
Feb 7 04:00:31 jhbro spamd[27962]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN94> line 120.
========================================================================================================
========================================================================================================

Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN17> line 39.
Feb 7 12:02:02 last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: connectip: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: , 3: , 4: at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN17> line 39.
Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 178,
<GEN17> line 39.
Feb 7 12:02:02 last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: BAD CONNECTIP l.176: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: , 3:
, 4:
Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 181,
<GEN17> line 39.
Feb 7 12:02:02 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 182,
<GEN17> line 39.

Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN21> line 56.
Feb 7 12:02:03 last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: connectip: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: , 3: , 4: at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN21> line 56.
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 178,
<GEN21> line 56.
Feb 7 12:02:03 last message repeated 2 times
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: BAD CONNECTIP l.176: 1: ***@jhbro.fr, 2: ,
3: , 4:
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 181,
<GEN21> line 56.
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15191]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 182,
<GEN21> line 56.
Feb 7 12:02:03 spamd[15192]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN16> line 95.

# ==========================================================================
Feb 7 12:45:58 spamd[15190]: spamd: server killed by SIGTERM, shutting down
# ==========================================================================
Feb 7 12:45:59 spamd[23818]: rules: meta test DIGEST_MULTIPLE has undefined
dependency 'DCC_CHECK'
Feb 7 12:45:59 spamd[23818]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message
<***@spamassassin_spamd_init>,
skipping greylisting call
# ==========================================================================
Feb 7 12:51:18 spamd[23820]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ] for message
<***@msgid.spamcop.net>,
skipping greylisting call

Feb 7 12:51:21 spamd[23821]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN9> line 78.
Feb 7 12:51:21 spamd[23821]: connectip: 1: 204, 2: 15, 3: 82, 4: 124 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN9> line 78.
Feb 7 12:51:27 spamd[23820]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN9> line 95.
Feb 7 12:51:27 spamd[23820]: connectip: 1: 204, 2: 15, 3: 82, 4: 124 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN9> line 95.

Feb 7 12:51:30 spamd[23821]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN12> line 108.
Feb 7 12:51:30 spamd[23821]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN12> line 108.

Feb 7 12:52:45 spamd[23820]: Couldn't get Connecting IP header [
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP ]
for message <
***@msgid.spamcop.net>, skipping greylisting call
Feb 7 12:52:48 spamd[23821]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN15> line 80.
Feb 7 12:52:48 spamd[23821]: connectip: 1: 204, 2: 15, 3: 82, 4: 126 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN15> line 80.

Feb 7 12:52:51 spamd[23820]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN15> line 97.
Feb 7 12:52:51 spamd[23820]: connectip: 1: 204, 2: 15, 3: 82, 4: 126 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN15> line 97.

Feb 7 12:52:54 spamd[23821]: uninitialized value Greylisting.pm line 176,
<GEN18> line 110.
Feb 7 12:52:54 spamd[23821]: connectip: 1: 127, 2: 0, 3: 0, 4: 1 at
Greylisting.pm line 176, <GEN18> line 110.
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-07 17:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bro
Mark,
Below are a bunch of examples (edited for redundancy and verbosity)
showing that sometimes the string that is supposed to be an IP address
is a (local) email address (originating locally too),
leaving regexes $2, $3, $4 quite empty.
Other times it's 127.0.0.1 (for the same message?)
and still other times it's a real external IP number.
Yet there are always complaints about unitialized values anyway.
BAD CONNECTIP l.175 is the warn() I added which only appears when
the "connectip" is an email address instead of an ip number.
So the other complaints are somehow at other steps in the process..
I'll have to add a little more code to deal with totally unexpected values
in there.
Post by John Bro
Some of this may be related to the fact that I am using
fetchmail to get mail from outside servers and hand it off to my
exim4.. but I don't understand *how* it's related (or what I'm
Ahaha, now you fess up :)

SA-Exim is mostly useless if you use fetchmail.
Greylisting cannot work if you already accepted the Email.
SMTP time filtering is irrelevant if you're feeding the mail from fetchmail.

If you don't have access to your outside MX to run SA-Exim there, you should
drop SA-Exim and just use spamassassin.
Sorry, SA-Exim cannot do much of anything useful in your situation.

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
Andreas Vögele
2007-02-07 23:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc MERLIN
SA-Exim is mostly useless if you use fetchmail.
With the small patch that I posted a while ago, sa-exim works quite
well with fetchmail. See

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.exim.spamassassin/991/
Post by Marc MERLIN
Greylisting cannot work if you already accepted the Email. SMTP
time filtering is irrelevant if you're feeding the mail from
fetchmail.
Yes, that's true. You can neither greylist nor reject messages
retrieved by fetchmail.
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-08 00:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
SA-Exim is mostly useless if you use fetchmail.
With the small patch that I posted a while ago, sa-exim works quite
well with fetchmail. See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.exim.spamassassin/991/
But how is that useful compared to a system wide spamassassin router unless
you have a weird setup where your MX also gets mails injected via fetchmail,
but does anyone really do that?

I still don't get how SA-Exim can ever be the right tool for the job as far
as fetchmail is concerned. It can be made to work, but I'm not sure why? :)

The SA-Exim docs link to
http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/config_docs/exim-spamassassin/
which would be the right way to go IMO

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
Andreas Vögele
2007-02-08 08:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
SA-Exim is mostly useless if you use fetchmail.
With the small patch that I posted a while ago, sa-exim works quite
well with fetchmail. See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.exim.spamassassin/991/
But how is that useful compared to a system wide spamassassin router unless
you have a weird setup where your MX also gets mails injected via fetchmail,
but does anyone really do that?
We have to use fetchmail in addition to SMTP on one of our MTAs. The
great thing about Exim is that you can do weird things easily. In a
perfect world, I'd use Postfix instead of Exim.
Post by Marc MERLIN
I still don't get how SA-Exim can ever be the right tool for the job
as far as fetchmail is concerned. It can be made to work, but I'm
not sure why? :)
It doesn't make sense to use SA-Exim if fetchmail is the only means of
retrieving mail. But if you would like to greylist SMTP connections
and also have to use fetchmail SA-Exim is a good choice.

Or is there another Greylisting solution for Exim (that greylists
after DATA)? Debian's greylistd is no alternative since it is bug
ridden.
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-08 15:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
I still don't get how SA-Exim can ever be the right tool for the job
as far as fetchmail is concerned. It can be made to work, but I'm
not sure why? :)
It doesn't make sense to use SA-Exim if fetchmail is the only means of
retrieving mail. But if you would like to greylist SMTP connections
and also have to use fetchmail SA-Exim is a good choice.
That's true. And you must be the only person who does this :)
Post by Andreas Vögele
Or is there another Greylisting solution for Exim (that greylists
after DATA)? Debian's greylistd is no alternative since it is bug
ridden.
There might be, but I wouldn't know.

That said, if it works for you, it's all good :)

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
John Bro
2007-02-07 18:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc MERLIN
* Some of this may be related to the fact that I am using
*> >* fetchmail to get mail from outside servers and hand it off to my
*> >* exim4.. but I don't understand *how* it's related (or what I'm
*
Post by Marc MERLIN
Ahaha, now you fess up :)
um.. yup.. mea culpa ;-}
Post by Marc MERLIN
SA-Exim is mostly useless if you use fetchmail.
Greylisting cannot work if you already accepted the Email.
SMTP time filtering is irrelevant if you're feeding the mail from fetchmail.
OK. I can understand that once the mail is received somewhere,
you can't treat it the same as if you were receiving it
directly from the sender.. I'm doing about 1/2 and 1/2 right now..
My own domain/server is new, so I'm still getting stuff at old addresses..
and most of the spam is going to the old addys..

But I still don't understand what is causing perl to do so much whining..
I'm no guru, but I do use perl quite a bit, and I'm having a helluva time
understanding what's going on here..
Post by Marc MERLIN
If you don't have access to your outside MX to run SA-Exim there, you should
drop SA-Exim and just use spamassassin.
Sorry, SA-Exim cannot do much of anything useful in your situation.
Too bad.. cuz apart from these perl complaints, it *feels* like sa-exim
is doing what I want -- the spam is gone and the good mail is getting in!

But, ok, I'll remove sa-exim from my config, and see if I can just
get SA working alone.. Thanks for the help.


cheers,

John
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-07 18:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bro
But I still don't understand what is causing perl to do so much whining..
I'm no guru, but I do use perl quite a bit, and I'm having a helluva time
understanding what's going on here..
I think fetchmail is feeding random crap to exim, which in turn gets passed
on to SA-Exim.
Quite frankly, I didn't quite code for receiving an Email address in an IP
field :)
Post by John Bro
Too bad.. cuz apart from these perl complaints, it *feels* like sa-exim
is doing what I want -- the spam is gone and the good mail is getting in!
You could do that with just Spamassassin and a filter to /dev/null

Also, SA-Exim is going to generate bounces that you don't want: you are joe
jobbing inoccent people who never sent you spam but got faked as the sender.

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
Mike Pellatt
2007-02-08 16:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
I still don't get how SA-Exim can ever be the right tool for the
job
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
as far as fetchmail is concerned. It can be made to work, but I'm
not sure why? :)
It doesn't make sense to use SA-Exim if fetchmail is the only means
of
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
retrieving mail. But if you would like to greylist SMTP connections
and also have to use fetchmail SA-Exim is a good choice.
That's true. And you must be the only person who does this :)
<waves>

No, he isn't :-)

I'm soooo impressed with SA-Exim, it really has revolutionised our mail
handling.

I played with MailScanner years ago. Then I realised I wasn't being a
good netizen......

Exim, of course, is the One True MTA.

Mike
Marc MERLIN
2007-02-08 16:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Pellatt
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
I still don't get how SA-Exim can ever be the right tool for the
job
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
Post by Marc MERLIN
as far as fetchmail is concerned. It can be made to work, but I'm
not sure why? :)
It doesn't make sense to use SA-Exim if fetchmail is the only means
of
Post by Marc MERLIN
Post by Andreas Vögele
retrieving mail. But if you would like to greylist SMTP connections
and also have to use fetchmail SA-Exim is a good choice.
That's true. And you must be the only person who does this :)
<waves>
No, he isn't :-)
Ok, you guys win :)

Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
Loading...