Don,
Do you have any suggestions on something else that would work better
with procmail?
Basically im just trying to stop my end users from getting spammed, so
with that in mind any recommendations?
Thank you,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: procmail-admin(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
[mailto:procmail-admin(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE] On Behalf Of Don
Hammond
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:23 PM
To: procmail(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Re: spamrc.txt file not working
On 11 Feb, Tom Warfield wrote:
| Okay I am using the sanitizer, which realy rocks! Now I have decided
to
| add some spam detection rules, which I found at
| http://ceti.pl/~kravietz/spamrc/, and I am not sure why but it works
| fine on one user and not the entire company. Since it is in the
| procmailrc shouldn't it be doing everyones emails and not just one
user?
| Kinda strange since I have added it to the main procmailrc in /etc.
|
| INCLUDERC=/etc/procmail/spamrc.txt
| INCLUDERC=/etc/procmail/html-trap.procmail
|
| I would like to say I have logs to show you, but I have found nothing.
| Only logs I see are being created by the sanitizer rules which appear
to
| be working fine.
|
| Any insight on why it would do this for only one user, and not scan
| everyone's emails? The sanitizer is catching everyones emails and
| processing them so I am not sure why the spamrc.txt file is not doing
| anything.
|
I don't have any ideas for your specific problem, other than to make
sure permissions are set appropriately on the directory and file. There
was a thread here within the last 24 hours that can be found at:
<http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2002-02/msg00129.html
and may have some some useful debugging hints for you.
My real intent is to point out you probably need to be careful with
spamrc.txt. It looks like the author is using extended regular
expression syntax that's not supported by procmail. Specifically, it
looks like he's using {m,n} quantifiers and the perl-ish \d to denote
numerics. There may be others.
This is not a criticism of the author (who is getting a separate
message) because, after all, he's gone to the effort of trying to
contribute. But some of those recipes might not perform as expected.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you
must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to
this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail