#146 temporary delivery errors from LDA are not respected

[Radim Kolar]

I run dspam from sendmail:

define(`LOCAL_MAILER_PATH', `/usr/local/bin/dspam')
define(`LOCAL_MAILER_ARGS', `dspam "--deliver=innocent" --user $u -d %u')

if dspam gets temporary deliver failure from maildrop (LDA)
TrustedDeliveryAgent "/usr/local/bin/maildrop"

it didnt respect temporary error from LDA (maildrop returns it if user has incorrect .mailfilter) and exists with error 255, which sendmail considers permanent delivery failure and returns message back. This leads to lost mail.

Mar 30 09:52:51 ponto dspam[67105]: Delivery agent returned exit code 75: /usr/local/bin/maildrop -d hsn
Mar 30 09:52:51 ponto sm-mta[67104]: q2U7qSWK067103: to=<hsn@ponto.amerinoc.com>
, delay=00:00:20, xdelay=00:00:19, mailer=local, pri=149955, dsn=5.3.0, stat=unknown mailer error 255
Mar 30 09:52:51 ponto sm-mta[67104]: q2U7qSWK067103: q2U7qpWI067104: DSN: unknown mailer error 255

[Stevan Bajic]

What version of DSPAM are you running? Can it be that you run an older version or that you have set 'LMTPLDAErrorsPermanent' to 'on'?

[Radim Kolar]

ponto:(crawler)~/nutch>dspam --version

DSPAM Anti-Spam Suite 3.10.1 (agent/library)

Copyright (C) 2002-2011 DSPAM Project

I do not have 'LMTPLDAErrorsPermanent' in dspam.conf, so i am using defaults.

[Stevan Bajic]

If you use default then LMTPLDAErrorsPermanent is used as if you would set it to off.

The error message you posted is generated in deliver_message() and probably the calling function is getting the proper error message back (that EX_TEMPFAIL) but probably not using it and exiting with error 255. This can be changed but would require all functions calling deliver_message() to be changed to honor the return value in case LMTPLDAErrorsPermanent is not set or set to off.

I currently have no time to do that kind of code change. If you have time and the knowledge feel free to attach a patch to this bug report.

[Radim Kolar]

I am using DSPAM Anti-Spam Suite 3.10.1 (agent/library).

It should be fixed quickly. i am loosing mail because of this bug.

[Stevan Bajic]

I understand your issue and I understand that you loose mail or that you consider that bounce as a lost mail. But as I said in my other post: Currently I don't have time to setup such a environment with maildrop and do a substantial code change. If you have the knowledge and time then please send me a patch that fixes this issue. Maybe some one lese having the same issue has already made a patch or a workaround? Have you asked the mailing list?