On Thu, 20 May 2004, Lucky Leavell wrote:
OS: SuSE 9.0 Spamassassin v2.55-75 (from SuSE FTP) MTA: Postfix 2.0.14-54 Procmail v3.15.1-483
/etc/procmailrc entry: PATH=$HOME/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb:/bin:/usr/local/bin MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/$LOGNAME LOGFILE=$HOME/procmail.log LOCKFILE=$HOME/.lockfile
:0 c backup_inbox
:0fw | /usr/local/bin/clamassassin
:0 * ^X-Virus-Status: Yes IN.Quarantine
:0: * ^X-Spam-Status.*Yes spamSA.$LOGNAME
Don't know why but this change to /etc/procmailrc has the desired results: :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes spamSA.$LOGNAME which, of course, begs the question: How did it work until now?
From misfiled email:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-104.8 required=4.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=2.55
The ONLY place mail is filed in spamSA.$LOGNAME is from this /etc/procmailrc entry. Problem began today when bayseian filtering started working for the first time.? (Why it started working is a mystery but it did. I posted a separate thread on this problem last week and even followed thru with the SA users list to no avail.)
I can understand procmail getting confused by negative SA score BUT SA still correctly says this was No[t] spam which my procmail rule should not file the emails in spamSA.$LOGNAME but fall thru to the other rules and eventually file the mail in the user's INBOX. (This particular misfiled message was from SuSE mailing list SLE.) Please note I have been using this procmail rule for about 10 days with no problems until today.)
Any ideas of why this is happening and what I can do about it?
Thank you, Lucky Leavell
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com