Spamassassin and procmail

[Antony Gelberg]

Hi all,

I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
| /usr/bin/spamassassin
to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
/var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
recipes.

Any ideas on how to alter this behaviour?

A


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Jeremy Gaddis]

On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 18:17, Antony Gelberg wrote:

> I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
> like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
> to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
> /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
> recipes.

Use something like one of the following (first is for mbox,
second for maildirs):

:0fw: spamassassin.lock
|/usr/bin/spamassassin
/usr/home/username/mail/mailbox

or

:0fw: spamassassin.lock
|/usr/bin/spamassassin
/usr/home/username/Maildir/.Folder/

Actually, locking isn't needed with maildirs, but I forget
the correct syntax of the first line as I don't use procmail
anymore ("man 5 {procmailrc,procmailex}") should give insight.

HTH,
j.

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis <jeremy@gaddis.org> <http://www.gaddis.org>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[J. Zidar]

On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 18:17, Antony Gelberg wrote:

> I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
> like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
> to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
> /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
> recipes.

adding -P after | /usr/bin/spamassassin should do it:
:0fw
|/usr/bin/spamassassin -P
/usr/home/username/mail/mailbox

HTH,
jernej


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Antony Gelberg]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:45:55AM -0500, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 18:17, Antony Gelberg wrote:

> > I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
> > like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
> > :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> > | /usr/bin/spamassassin
> > to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
> > /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
> > recipes.

>
> Use something like one of the following (first is for mbox,
> second for maildirs):
>
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> |/usr/bin/spamassassin
> /usr/home/username/mail/mailbox

But then doesn't that just deliver all the mail to
/usr/home/username/mail/mailbox ? I want the output from spamassassin
to go through the rest of my procmail recipes - I didn't spend days
tuning them for nothing!

A


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Rich Puhek]

Antony Gelberg wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
> like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
> to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
> /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
> recipes.
>
> Any ideas on how to alter this behaviour?
>
> A
>
>

:0fw
# Or, use spamd and spamd, which is a lot nicer to your machine
# under heavy load:
#|/usr/bin/spamc -s 500000 -d <host> -p 783
| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P

:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
..spam/


....might work better. The pipe to spamassassin just tags the mail, the
second rule is what actually delivers the message. Depending on the
version of spamassassin, the -P flag is not needed any more (my 2.55
install's man page says that pipe to stdout is default behavior).

You could also sort based on the level of "spamminess":


#Sort into spam folders based on "spamminess". Folder names
# have leading number so that Netscape sorts them correctly.
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
#.spam/
{
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
.spam.4-very-spammy/


:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
.spam.3-pretty-spammy/

:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*\*
.spam.2-somewhat-spammy/

:0:
.spam/
}


#Drop potential FN here:
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*
..spam.1-slightly-spammy/



--Rich

__________________________________________________ _______

Rich Puhek
ETN Systems Inc.
2125 1st Ave East
Hibbing MN 55746

tel: 218.262.1130
email: [email]rpuhek@etnsystems.com[/email]
__________________________________________________ _______


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Derrick 'dman' Hudson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:39AM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote:
| Hi all,
|
| I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
| like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
| :0fw: spamassassin.lock
| | /usr/bin/spamassassin
| to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
| /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
| recipes.
|
| Any ideas on how to alter this behaviour?

1) don't use an obsolete version of spamassassin

2) tell SA that you want it to behave like it ought :-)
(as someone else said, '-P'. the last several releases
removed this parameter and the local delivery mis-feature)

-D

--
The nice thing about windoze is - it does not just crash,
it displays a dialog box and lets you press 'ok' first.

[url]http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/[/url]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see [url]http://www.gnupg.org[/url]

iEYEARECAAYFAj8un60ACgkQiB6vp1xAVUDpmwCeL97/tfmdEWHkVQPgxfHiM1Sc
cFgAmwe50nXOOvddrVP4TDLLxKjFQcna
=+Vh7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Kevin Buhr]

Antony Gelberg <antony@antgel.co.uk> writes:

>
> I currently use fetchmail and procmail to get and sort my mail. I'd
> like to use spamassassin as well, however when I add
>
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
>
> to my .procmailrc, it works ok, but then the mail gets delivered to
> /var/mail/<username>, rather than following the rest of my procmail
> recipes.

Rich's answer is right. You need the "-P" option for the stable
version of SpamAssassin, and you don't need a lock, so the complete
rule should read:

:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamassassin -P

As an extra bit of advice, you might want to consider upgrading to the
version in "unstable" instead (which, by the way, doesn't need the
"-P" option). A while back, I decided to give SpamAssassin a try to
see if it did a better job than the homespun rules that I'd
accumulated over the last few years. I installed the 2.20-1woody
version from stable, and I was very disappointed. It missed almost
everything. For me, it was essentially useless.

Before tossing SpamAssassin entirely in the bit bucket, I decided to
give it a second chance by installing 2.55-3 from unstable. It was
like night and day. The newer version does a much, much better job.

The 2.55-3 source package builds fine on a vanilla Woody machine. (In
fact, the unstable "spamassassin" binary package would install fine on
a vanilla Woody system, too, except it has an apparently unnecessary
dependency on "spamc" which depends on the unstable C library.)

--
Kevin <buhr@telus.net>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Mark Ferlatte]

Kevin Buhr said on Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:05:43PM -0700:

> The 2.55-3 source package builds fine on a vanilla Woody machine. (In
> fact, the unstable "spamassassin" binary package would install fine on
> a vanilla Woody system, too, except it has an apparently unnecessary
> dependency on "spamc" which depends on the unstable C library.)

I wouldn't call spamc unnecessary; spamassassin is a serious resource
consumer, and starting a new copy for every message is a pretty easy way to
crush your machine. Running spamd, and using spamc from procmail is much much
lighter, and you're less likely to have 10 messages arrive at the same time and
DoS your mail server.

M

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/LsFzOtZWu2tc1lARApyHAJ4yLxo19MG3cSvD3NvuXfRi5PnPmw CeI17a
slA/T2dQ5OXUf5GWirVVc9E=
=OS/7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andrew McGuinness]

Mark Ferlatte wrote:

> Kevin Buhr said on Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:05:43PM -0700:
>

>>The 2.55-3 source package builds fine on a vanilla Woody machine. (In
>>fact, the unstable "spamassassin" binary package would install fine on
>>a vanilla Woody system, too, except it has an apparently unnecessary
>>dependency on "spamc" which depends on the unstable C library.)

>
>
> I wouldn't call spamc unnecessary; spamassassin is a serious resource
> consumer, and starting a new copy for every message is a pretty easy way to
> crush your machine. Running spamd, and using spamc from procmail is much much
> lighter, and you're less likely to have 10 messages arrive at the same time and
> DoS your mail server.
>
> M

Installing the unstable binaries on a woody system will pull in unstable
libc etc., which is a bad thing. Therefore use Adrian Bunk's backports:
[url]http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/[/url]

--
Andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]

iD8DBQE/Lsq+qEms0aLHW4URAgc1AJ9oyaAvbR1I4wfXtBpslY3JfUoQiA CeIxTE
oB5NKiWh9ALZQdICviysxig=
=lcxc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----