[Dovecot] spamc can't seem to call /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver

[Bill Shirley]

On 10/24/2012 2:25 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 02:04:39PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
>> On 10/24/2012 1:39 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:28:41PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2012 12:32 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:52:45PM -0600, Troy Vitullo wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>> postfix/pipe[3607]: 50DEFF180EE: to=<[mail]>, relay=dovecot,
>>>>>> delay=1.7, delays=0.07/0.01/0/1.6, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred
>>>>>> (system resource problem)
>>>>> The poster who was talking about postconf(5) mailbox_command
>>>>> was bringing in a red herring. That is for local(8) delivery,
>>>>> and you evidently are using pipe(8).
>>>> Just a note: the original post did NOT have the word 'virtual'
>>>> in it. If it did, I missed it and apologize for introducing
>>>> confusion.
>>> It did not, but it did indeed include the pipe log output shown
>>> above, and therefore ^mailbox_.* postconf settings do not apply.
>> Could be he was going about it the wrong way; mixing the two.
>> Do you know whether he's trying to do virtual or local?
> There are lots of wrong ways. The most wrongful of the OP's ways I
> found was the misuse of the dovecot user. The second most wrong,
> which was the actual problem at hand, was a misunderstanding of how
> group permissions are applied.
>
> Mixing virtual and local in Postfix and Dovecot is no problem at all,
> and in fact multiple modes of delivery are possible, even within a
> given address class or even within a domain.
>
> All we know here is what the OP posted. You don't usually use pipe
> for delivery to local (Unix) users.
>
>> My postings describe my implementation.
> For the OP to change to local delivery would require reworking his
> setup extensively, on the Postfix side, and here we are on the
> Dovecot list, so I wouldn't go into that here. But sure, there are
> other (and for many purposes, better) means of doing what he might
> want to do.
>
>> I'm just trying to help him.  But I don't think my posts are
>> being received that way.
> Regarding Robert's "flame" comment in the other subthread, I agree
> with you; I saw no flame. And I did not suggest that you were not
> trying to help.
Thank you for saying this.  My intent was to help.

  I make my living setting up/programming with open source software. I 
don't want to only 'take'.  I want to show my gratitude for is so freely 
given to me by also giving.  I don't program in C so I can't help with 
that.  But I can share configurations/experiences and hopefully that is 
a contribution.

Bill