Troy Ayers wrote:
> To check build parameters: dspam --version.
On the stock debian builds (well at least on the Ubuntu ones) that
doesn't give any output. Never really understood why.
> run dspam with the --debug switch ( my man page is a few years old,
> please double check that --debug is the right switch to issue and also
> check to see if it's compatible with daemon mode)
I'll see what I can find out, but I think dspam needs building with
--enable-debug for that to do anything useful, and I think (based on the
advice in dspam.conf) that is not how it was built.
>> Where would any root alias be set?
> Whatever your postfix specifies it to be set as. My default location
> is /etc/aliases. The postconf utility will tell you.
OK, postmaster is aliased to root, and root to user1 (the main user I
log into the server with, which isn't really user1 in case anyone wants
to try and hack my server :-)
I have no idea where that mail actually goes to, however. If I try:
$mail user1
.. to send an email to user1, then:
mail user1
.. I get "No mail for user1". There is nothing in Postfix's mail.log
which refers to user1.
I have modified the alias to go to a full email address that should work.
>>
>> Would postfix have logged any failure to find a suitable
>> root/postmaster mailbox, and if so what should I look for in the logs?
> Yes.
>
> You would be better served looking up postfix questions yourself, to
> be sure you're getting accurate information. Something like egrep
> "error|fatal|panic|warning" /var/log/maillog.
Thanks, and yes I understand that this is not a Postfix list and will
check out any advice I get here separately. (Aside from the log file
being mail.log it looks pretty sound though.)
The only dspam related errors seem to be lots of:
process_message returned error -5. dropping message.
.. although I have no easy way to know if they're related to my problem.
Any idea what this means?
>> Looking at the Perl code I'm not convinced it is very careful, but I
>> really don't know much Perl at all. I've appended what I think is the
>> relevant subroutine below, but it looks to me like it extracts
>> messages, retrains on them (which I think leaves dspam to resend the
>> message?), then afterwards just deletes selected messages from the
>> quarantine (via Quarantine_DeleteSpam). There doesn't seem to be much
>> attempt to avoid deleting messages that couldn't be sent for some
>> reason.
> I leave this up to those more knowledgeable than me to determine if a
> bug report should be reported.
I certainly hope someone is able to look at the code, as if there is a
problem it'll be affecting more than just me, even if not always visibly!
If someone is at least able to compare the code I posted with the same
code in 3.8.x that might be useful.
Thanks again for your help.
--
Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0845 45 89 555
Registered in England (0456 0902) at 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG
!DSPAM:1011,4874d683150923427311555!