X-Git-Url: https://git.exim.org/users/jgh/exim.git/blobdiff_plain/c5f280e20a8e3ecd5f016b8fb34a436588915ed2..4b28966eb9083f910fd254cd6bb7b743f759f02d:/test/scripts/4000-scanning/4009?ds=sidebyside

diff --git a/test/scripts/4000-scanning/4009 b/test/scripts/4000-scanning/4009
index 8e34c9802..d9849c341 100644
--- a/test/scripts/4000-scanning/4009
+++ b/test/scripts/4000-scanning/4009
@@ -1,17 +1,25 @@
 # content scan interface: spamassassin
+#
+# The spooled file for scanning includes the test-runner's user name
+# hence size varies.  Munge that.
+munge scanfile_size
+#
+#
+# A good-comms test, returning not-spam.
+# (we could use a second one that returns is-spam...)
 server 7833
 <REPORT SPAMC
 <User:
 <Content-length:
 <
-<From 
+<From
 <X-Envelope-From
 <X-Envelope-To
-<Received: 
-<	by 
+<Received:
+<	by
 <	(envelope
-<	id 
-<	for 
+<	id
+<	for
 <Content-type: text/plain
 <Message-Id:
 <From:
@@ -27,7 +35,7 @@ server 7833
 >similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 >@@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 >
->Content preview:  test [...] 
+>Content preview:  test [...]
 >
 >Content analysis details:   (4.5 points, 5.0 required)
 >
@@ -42,9 +50,9 @@ server 7833
 >
 *eof
 ****
-exim -odi -bs
+exim -odi -oMt fromuser -bs
 ehlo test.ex
-mail from:<>
+mail from:<fromuser@myhost.test.ex>
 rcpt to:<userx@test.ex>
 data
 Content-type: text/plain
@@ -53,3 +61,182 @@ test
 .
 quit
 ****
+#
+#
+#
+#
+# Server spec line with timeout option, not exercised
+# (could we cut down the massive content?)
+server 7833
+<REPORT SPAMC
+<User:
+<Content-length:
+<
+<From
+<X-Envelope-From
+<X-Envelope-To
+<Received:
+<	by
+<	(envelope
+<	id
+<	for
+<Content-type: text/plain
+<Message-Id:
+<From:
+<Date:
+<
+<test
+>SPAMD/1.1 0 EX_OK
+>Spam: False ; 4.5 / 5.0
+>
+>Spam detection software, running on the system "demo",
+>has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
+>message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
+>similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
+>@@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
+>
+>Content preview:  test [...]
+>
+>Content analysis details:   (4.5 points, 5.0 required)
+>
+> pts rule name              description
+>---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
+>-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
+> 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
+> 1.0 MISSING_FROM           Missing From: header
+> 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT        Missing Subject: header
+> 1.4 MISSING_DATE           Missing Date: header
+> 0.1 MISSING_MID            Missing Message-Id: header
+>
+*eof
+****
+exim -odi -oMt fromuser -bs -DOPT='127.0.0.1 7833 retry=10s'
+ehlo test.ex
+mail from:<fromuser@myhost.test.ex>
+rcpt to:<userx@test.ex>
+data
+Content-type: text/plain
+
+test
+.
+quit
+****
+#
+#
+#
+# Server spec line with timeout option, exercised
+server -i 2 7833
+<REPORT SPAMC
+<User:
+<Content-length:
+<
+<From
+<X-Envelope-From
+<X-Envelope-To
+<Received:
+<	by
+<	(envelope
+<	id
+<	for
+<Content-type: text/plain
+<Message-Id:
+<From:
+<Date:
+<
+<test
+>SPAMD/1.1 0 EX_OK
+>Spam: False ; 4.5 / 5.0
+>
+>Spam detection software, running on the system "demo",
+>has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
+>message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
+>similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
+>@@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
+>
+>Content preview:  test [...]
+>
+>Content analysis details:   (4.5 points, 5.0 required)
+>
+> pts rule name              description
+>---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
+>-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
+> 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
+> 1.0 MISSING_FROM           Missing From: header
+> 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT        Missing Subject: header
+> 1.4 MISSING_DATE           Missing Date: header
+> 0.1 MISSING_MID            Missing Message-Id: header
+>
+*eof
+****
+exim -odi -oMt fromuser -bs -DOPT='127.0.0.1 7833 retry=4s'
+ehlo test.ex
+mail from:<fromuser@myhost.test.ex>
+rcpt to:<userx@test.ex>
+data
+Content-type: text/plain
+
+test
+.
+quit
+****
+#
+#
+#
+# Multiple servers, prioritised, with timeout spec; first one fails
+# List separator changed
+server 7833
+<REPORT SPAMC
+<User:
+<Content-length:
+<
+<From
+<X-Envelope-From
+<X-Envelope-To
+<Received:
+<	by
+<	(envelope
+<	id
+<	for
+<Content-type: text/plain
+<Message-Id:
+<From:
+<Date:
+<
+<test
+>SPAMD/1.1 0 EX_OK
+>Spam: False ; 4.5 / 5.0
+>
+>Spam detection software, running on the system "demo",
+>has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
+>message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
+>similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
+>@@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
+>
+>Content preview:  test [...]
+>
+>Content analysis details:   (4.5 points, 5.0 required)
+>
+> pts rule name              description
+>---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
+>-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
+> 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
+> 1.0 MISSING_FROM           Missing From: header
+> 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT        Missing Subject: header
+> 1.4 MISSING_DATE           Missing Date: header
+> 0.1 MISSING_MID            Missing Message-Id: header
+>
+*eof
+****
+exim -odi -oMt fromuser -bs -DOPT='<; 127.0.0.1 7833 ; HOSTIPV4 7834 pri=2 tmo=2s'
+ehlo test.ex
+mail from:<fromuser@myhost.test.ex>
+rcpt to:<userx@test.ex>
+data
+Content-type: text/plain
+
+test
+.
+quit
+****
+#
+#