Sent this to misc about a month ago, but really didn't get a response. Ports is 
listed as the maintainer for smtp-vilter. So, if anybody is interested…

Aaron

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Aaron Jackson <jack...@msrce.howard.edu>
> Subject: smtp-vilter bug/feature?
> Date: September 6, 2011 2:41:30 PM EDT
> To: m...@openbsd.org
> 
> Irene killed my firewall/web server/mail sever, so I'm in the process of 
> recreating its setup with the current 4.9 release. I was running into a 
> problem with making smtp-vilter (installed from a package) work the way I 
> expected it to work. Specifically, the virus backend via clamav and the spam 
> backend via spam assassin worked fine but I could never get the attachment 
> backend to work. I kept getting the following message in maillog whenever I 
> sent an unwanted attachment:
> 
> Sep  2 12:54:52 mushmouth smtp-vilter[32388]: failed to replace message body
> 
> After banging my head for a couple of days (I did search google and the 
> mailing list without luck) I was able to trace the error message to line 1817 
> of engine.c:
> 
>       if ((virus_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (error_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (spam_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (unwanted_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT))
>               desc.xxfi_flags |= SMFIF_CHGBODY;
> 
> It turns out that for unwanted content, when smtp-vilter registers with 
> sendmail, it never sets the change body flag because 
> STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT is not an allowed strategy for unwanted content. I 
> made the following change then rebuilt and re-installed, and things seem to 
> work as expected.
> 
>       if ((virus_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (error_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (spam_strategy == STRATEGY_NOTIFY_RECIPIENT)
>           || (unwanted_strategy == STRATEGY_MARK))
>               desc.xxfi_flags |= SMFIF_CHGBODY;
> 
> It seems like a bug to me, but then again the code is a bit complex and I 
> don't fully understand it. I was just wondering if anybody had any thoughts 
> about this "fix." I don't know if this will effect anything. Anyway, reading 
> code is very educational and I did learn a few things in the process.
> 
> Aaron

Reply via email to