--
also sprach dman <dsh8290@???> [2002.01.16.0507 +0100]:
> | does exim already have the recipient user by the time the filter is
> called?
>
> It does, and I _could_ run the script as the user. The problem there
> is only "privileged" (in exim's eyes) users are allowed to set the
> received_protocol.
i don't know exim well enough... sorry.
> I think a command line option should be available to say "don't create
> a prefs file". That should be the user's job anyways.
i agree. too bad spamassassin is open source. uh, wait... :)
> Looks complicated. I like the simplicity of using the existing
> command. I don't want spamassassin doing the actual delivery anyways,
> I want exim (with my filter file) to do it.
okay, that's your main point. however, my script's really just plain
simple...
> 1) no user prefs
depends on the user base. for instance, the users on some of my systems
can't even spell "shell account". so i do it globally anyway. those
power users who want full control can create ~/.no-spamfilter and use
spamassassin -P from their procmail. simple as that.
> 2) play some tricks to set $HOME and tell users that mail/mail
> must be able to read their prefs
good luck! telling users anything :)
i think this might even warrant a cronjob to do 0644 on
/home/*/.spamassasin.rc
> 3) run as user and find a different way to prevent loops
what do you mean with loops? as in you run as a user and then invoke
exim separately when done?
why do you insist on using exim till the actual delivery?
> > it's nice, because users can touch files ~/.no-spamfilter to
> > completely disable spamassassin for themselves, and a file
> > ~/.no-spamreport will just cause the "X-Spam-Flag: YES" header, not
> > the subject line change and SA report in the body.
>
> These are interesting options. In my setup the user (via their filter
> file) will need to decide to discard the message if they want to. For
> myself, I'm just sticking it into =junk so I can check it later if I
> want to.
well right, but i personally like the spamassasin report in the body (i
can always delete it again with vi), and others simply hate it. the spam
flag will always be there, but i've had users who objected to a program
even having access to their mail. i refrained from explaining what
postfix does. these are executives ;)
> Thanks for your input martin.
what's that we say, "one hand washes the other"? it almost sounds
biblical too. but you could interpret it as M. C. Escher too. or as
Kurt Goedel. Or as Douglas Hofstaedter... no, i am not influenced by
GEB.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]
--
