SA 3.0.0, what other local cf files?

[Rick Cooper]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]On
> Behalf Of Jeff A. Earickson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:38 PM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: SA 3.0.0, what other local cf files?
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Julian Field wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:44:00 +0100
> > From: Julian Field <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
> > Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: SA 3.0.0, what other local cf files?
> >
> > At 21:48 28/09/2004, you wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> After upgrading from SA 2.64 to 3.0 last week (and wiping out my Bayes
> >> database in a struggle to get that working), I have noticed that my
> >> percentage of high spam discards have dropped from about 75% of my
> >> spam to about 25%.
> >>
> >> The other thing I did last week was to clean out local rulesets in
> >> /etc/mail/spamassassin -- I removed backhair.cf, antidrug.cf,
> >> bogus-virus-warnings.cf, and multi.surbl.org.cf (Steve
> Swaney's creation?).
> >> I was under the impression that a lot of this had been added to 3.0.
> >> After poking around the 3.0 rulesets, I'm not convinced and I've
> >> restored these files to /etc/mail/spamassassin.
> >
> > Of that lot, the only ones you need to keep are antidrug.cf and
> > bogus-virus-warnings.cf, the others are all built in.
> > If you use bogus-virus-warnings.cf, please set
> >        score VIRUS_WARNING62 0
> > or else posts from me will often get thrown away :-(
>
> Before using bogus-warnings, I always go thru it and comment out all
> rulesets that reference MailScanner.  I've been burned by that before.
>
> The only one of the four above that hasn't been used since I added
> them back in is multi.surbl.org.cf.  In fact my MS syslogs since upgrading
> to SA 3.0 show zero use of SURBL (either multi.surbl.org.cf or
> 25_uribl.cf)
> so something is clearly broken there.  Nonuse of SURBL could account
> for my increase in spam.  Wonder why it broke...
>
> BTW, I am still running MS 4.33.3.  Do I need to upgrade to 4.34.x
> to get the full benefit of SA 3.0?  I was waiting for the paint to dry.
>

Just for chuckles and grins, su to the user that runs SA and do a
spamassassin -D --lint 2>&1 | less

and look at your DNS test section toward the top of output. I had noticed
that 8 out of 10 times I would see a failure notice. I could immediately dig
the host that could not be reached and it would resolve instantly. I made
sure all the network/dns perl mods were current and that wouldn't matter. I
added dns_available (in the spamassassin.prefs file) with a list of MY
servers that I knew were resolvable forward and reverse and it would still
fail. I then added "dns_available yes" and all the problems were gone. I
still have to look into why SA was failing without forcing it to skip the
availability tests. (yes caching dns server, no default not 127.0.0.1, bind9
latest). If you see a failure, and you have working DNS, add the
dns_available yes to your spam.assassin.prefs.conf and see what happens.

I'll get around to it sooner or later. This was not an issue prior to 3.0

Rick


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).