Re: Mailman sa-exim Question

Quoting Justin F. Knotzke ([email protected]):

>    I have a question concerning mailman and sa-exim.

Ok. We'll just leave you to it then. 
Probably in a few hours you'll have solved it!












Just kidding :)

>    My mailman configuration uses: 
> http://www.daa.com.au/~james/articles/mailman-spamassassin/

I don't know exactly, but if you have the sa-exim module in Exim, why
would you want to integrate spamassassin in mailmain again? Wouldn't you
rather have exim do the magic, and feed messages to mailman that need to
go there?

Personally, I used these[1] settings in my exim4.conf to play with
mailman and it worked fine. Exim rejected spam, mailman didn't get it,
etc.

> 2003-08-08 07:20:39 19l5IQ-0002Me-S4 SA: Debug: SAEximRejCond expand
> returned: '1'
> 2003-08-08 07:20:39 19l5IQ-0002Me-S4 SA: Debug: SAteergrubecond expand
> returned: '1'

To my best knowledge, the message was dropped at this stage and never
reached the delivery process of your exim. 

>    The problem is that the message was forwarded to mailman and the
> spamassassin patch to mailman kicked in and had the message marked for
> approval.

This is the weird part. Do you have a message to send to reproduce this
behaviour?  If you do, you should try to run exim4 in debug mode, and
have the output redirected somewhere, and then do the delivery that
triggers this behaviour.

I strongly believe there's something weird in your setup ;)

> Is there a way to configure sa-exim to _not_ do this? If the message
> is teergrubed then I'd like the message dropped just as it does for a
> message destined to a regular user.

IMHO it does this already.

Sander
[1] http://dot.freshdot.net/~ssmeenk/tmp/mailman.exim4.txt

-- 
| If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out.
| 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8  9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D