procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More clamav testing (results)

2004-02-13 18:33:49
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Dallman Ross wrote:

(It's 2 a.m. here already.)  I can look more at this Saturday.

Not necessary on my account, certainly. :-)

But first, I think you might be right about the problem with
spamc_failure.  (Thanks!)  I don't think the solution proposed will
quite be bulletproof, though.

That wasn't a proposed solution for your usage, it was an example that
might conceivably demonstrate that my thesis about pipe-assignments and
w/W was false.

As far as I've been able to determine the ONLY way to discover that spamc
failed to connect to spamd is to allow it to (attempt to) rewrite the
message header, and then look at the header to see whether the X-Spam-
lines have been added (if they weren't, no spamd).  But that wasn't the
point of my example.

we were just saying that

   :0 W
   CS_OUT=| clamscan --options -

is not working, and you said it's because it finds a virus with
a positive exit status, which it indeed does; but you say the
status causes the output to be thrown out.  And maybe you're
right.  But then, why doesn't this --

  :0 W
  SA_OUT=| spamc

cause the results to be thrown out?

My point was that I strongly suspect the latter DOES cause the results to
be thrown out.  Unless I missed something (overtrimmed when excerpting),
your recipes never look at the results in any case where they might have
been thrown out, so your example provided no new information.


_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail