Re: [exim] Exim 4 & SpamAssassin problem

Thanks for the reply.
I'm not entirely sure what the syntax would be for adding a condition
to my data ACL.. I thought I could add the domains to a white list in
the local.cf file in this way: whitelist_from *.gov.uk
*.messagelabs.com - I picked that up from a Google search earlier on but
obviously it didn't work..
Can you tell me what the procedure would be?

The messages are all the same as the examples I posted, they all seem
to be coming from SA according to Exim's main.log.

SA's log has hundreds of these lines from my problem domain:

Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21446]: checking message
<E1C54Ar-00050Y-Tn@???> for nobody:99.
Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21429]: connection from mail [127.0.0.1] at
port 45246
Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21447]: info: setuid to nobody succeeded
Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21447]: checking message
<E1C54Ar-00050Y-Tn@???> for nobody:99.
Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21429]: connection from mail [127.0.0.1] at
port 45247
Sep 11 03:03:00 mail spamd[21448]: info: setuid to nobody succeeded

Cheers.

>>> Tom Kistner <tom@???> 22/09/2004 14:23:44 >>>
Lee Forster wrote:

> The panic.log has multiple entries for "spam acl condition: cannot
> parse spamd output"

I should have worded that more generic. I fact it means "general spamd

fuckup" and is mostly caused by spamd going away without providing ANY

output (that is, crashing).

> It's only messages from this particular domain (other mail is being
> delivered fine), we've tried adding the domain to a 'white list' as
a
> temporary fix, but I'm not certain that we're putting it in the
right
> place (SpamAssassin's local.cf file). There were 2000+ entries in
the
> main.log yesterday for messages from this domain (obviously most
were
> retries).

For immediate relief, exempt the sender domain from spamd scanning by
adding a condition to your DATA ACL in the appropriate place.

Are these messages supposedly all the same (or generated by the same
software)? If not, I rather suspect that SAs additional network-based
facilities (RBLs, SPF) crap out.

regards,

/tom