uhlar at fantomas
May 20, 2008, 5:43 AM
Post #2 of 3
(92 views)
Permalink
|
On 20.05.08 12:06, Michael Geiger wrote:
> Hello, I just found a problem with a shortcircuit rule in my sa
> installation (3.2.4)!
shortcircuiting is not as easy as it seems. Many kinds of different checks
are run in parallel, some are run before others. To get shortcircuit
working, you must increase priority of a rule enough.
> I have defined in local.cf:
>
> header MAILMAN ALL =~
> /-(bounces|confirm|join|leave|request|subscribe|unsubscribe)\@lists\.xxx\.xxx/i
> describe MAILMAN Mailman whitelisted
> shortcircuit MAILMAN ham
>
>
> This rule hit on a mail to xxx-request[at]lists.xxx.xxx:
>
> spamd: identified spam (9.8/6.0) for filter:2525 in 0.6 seconds, 824 bytes.
> spamd: result: Y 9 -
> MAILMAN,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,URIBL_AB_SURBL,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_JP_SURBL,URIBL_OB_SURBL,URIBL_SC_SURBL,URIBL_WS_SURBL
> scantime=0.6,size=824,user=filter,uid=2525,required_score=6.0,rhost=localhost,raddr=127.0.0.1,rport=48543,mid=<48329E0E.3020708[at]xxx.xxx>,autolearn=disabled,shortcircuit=ham
>
>
> The score was not set to shortcircuit_ham_score (default -100, not
> defined in my config).
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar[at]fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.
|
