Hi,
Marco Herrn wrote:
>>>2006-02-09 13:19:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 <= ebay-698272660-29c094adII12607e1@??? H=fmmailgate01.web.de [217.72.192.221] P=esmtp S=30388 id=43EB3250.00000082@???
>>>2006-02-09 13:24:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 <pat@???>: spamcheck transport output: An error was detected while processing a file of BSMTP input.
>>
>>5 minute timeout of spamc/spamd?
>>
>>Anyway, I'd strongly suggest using Exim's builtin spamd interface so you
>> don't have to use such kludges. You'll have to do a bunch of changes in
>>you exim config.
>
>
> Which interface do you mean? I do not want to scan at SMTP time.
That, plus you cannot have per-user preferences... which is one of the
reasons we do it this way.
> Hmm, after reading the manpage of spamc I am not that enthusiastic
> anymore:
>
> -e command [args]
> Instead of writing to stdout, pipe the output to command's
> standard input. Note that there is a very slight chance mail will be
> lost here, because if the fork-and-exec fails there's no place to put
> the mail message.
Hmm, I'm curious what the chance is that this fails, and the chance that
the transport_filter-method fails...
> I think that a transport_filter is therefore a better option.
It (apparantly) makes it more complex though, but I agree that it should
just work.
> But what is still confusing me, is that the mail don't get delivered.
> When spamc gets a timeout, that should be a 4xx error (which is the
> case). But why does the message bounce?
... good question :-)
(Hmm, the exim -bS created the 4xx error, but the pipe / transport was a
fatal error, I believe?)
Paul
