On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:47:27PM -0700, Jeremy Kusnetz wrote:
> I get: 18.9/6.0   Which looks correct, BUT
> doing an echo $?, returns a 0 instead of 1.
Can you submit this to bugzilla?  It definately is a bug, I mean I do
a packet trace and here's what I get with one of my spams:
So spamd is definately returning false incorrectly.

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D4E16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:45:37 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:45:37 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8DJZZC32227 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:35:35 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17pw9f-0005dL-00; Fri,
    13 Sep 2002 12:31:03 -0700
from nat-pool-rdu.spamassassin.taint.org ([66.187.233.200]
    helo=lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp
    (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17pw8x-000458-00 for
    <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:30:19 -0700
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Fri Sep 13 20:45:39 2002

On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 14:33, vernon wrote:
Sending mail directly to a backup mail server in the hopes that it has
less stringent spam scanning is a common spammer trick.
Senior Engineer                 Red Hat Professional Consulting

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F9016F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:05:30 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:05:30 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8EGN4C09608 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:23:04 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17qFgK-0002eo-00; Sat,
    14 Sep 2002 09:22:04 -0700
from eclectic.kluge.net ([66.92.69.221]) by
    usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
    (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17qFew-0004CK-00 for
    <Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 09:20:38 -0700
from eclectic.kluge.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    eclectic.kluge.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8EGJG4q021248;
    Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:19:16 -0400
(from felicity@localhost) by eclectic.kluge.net
    (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g8EGJEWB021246; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:19:14 -0400
Re: [SAtalk] Still confused about spamd/c
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Sat Sep 14 20:05:30 2002