Error or bug?

[Michael ONeil]

Debian 9/Postfix/Dovecot/RSpamD

I have spent the past few days trying to track down this error:

Worker Type = rspamd_proxy

call to ((NULL)) failed (2): /usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:379: bad argument #1 to 'ipairs' (table expected, got nil); trace: [1]:{[C]:-1 - ipairs [C]}; [2]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:379 - fun [Lua]}; [3]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lib/fun.lua:30 - call_if_not_empty [Lua]}; [4]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lib/fun.lua:174 - each [Lua]}; [5]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:378 - [Lua]};

 

None of the directory locations have this file. So then I am trying to find the source that is causing this error. I can't find it.?

 

A google search resulted in nothing.

 

Any info or insight would help.

Thanks!

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 26.07.2017 17:13, Michael ONeil wrote:
> Debian 9/Postfix/Dovecot/RSpamD
>
>
> I have spent the past few days trying to track down this error:
>
>
> Worker Type = rspamd_proxy
>
>
> call to ((NULL)) failed (2): /usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:379: bad
> argument #1 to 'ipairs' (table expected, got nil); trace: [1]:{[C]:-1 -
> ipairs [C]}; [2]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:379 - fun [Lua]};
> [3]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lib/fun.lua:30 - call_if_not_empty [Lua]};
> [4]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lib/fun.lua:174 - each [Lua]};
> [5]:{/usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:378 - [Lua]};
>
>

Can you show the output of `rspamadm configdump rbl` first? It seems
your local (or leftover) config is merged incorrectly.

[mxo...@gmail.com]

Oh...? I haven't changed that config much. Seams default configs are incomplete?

rspamadm configdump rbl
*** Section rbl ***
default_ipv4 = true;
default_ipv6 = true;
default_from = true;
default_received = true;
default_exclude_users = true;
default_unknown = true;
rbls {
spamhaus {
symbol = "RBL_SPAMHAUS";
rbl = "zen.spamhaus.org";
ipv4 = true;
ipv6 = true;
received = true;
from = true;
returncodes {
RBL_SPAMHAUS_SBL = "127.0.0.2";
RBL_SPAMHAUS_CSS = "127.0.0.3";
RBL_SPAMHAUS_XBL [
"127.0.0.4",
"127.0.0.5",
"127.0.0.6",
"127.0.0.7",
]
RBL_SPAMHAUS_PBL [
"127.0.0.10",
"127.0.0.11",
]
RBL_SPAMHAUS_DROP = "127.0.0.9";
}
}
spamhaus_xbl {
symbol = "RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS";
rbl = "zen.spamhaus.org";
ipv4 = true;
ipv6 = true;
received = true;
from = true;
ignore_whitelists = true;
returncodes {
RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_XBL [
"127.0.0.4",
"127.0.0.5",
"127.0.0.6",
"127.0.0.7",
]
}
}
mailspike {
symbol = "MAILSPIKE";
rbl = "rep.mailspike.net";
is_whitelist = true;
whitelist_exception = "MAILSPIKE";
whitelist_exception = "RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD";
whitelist_exception = "RWL_MAILSPIKE_NEUTRAL";
whitelist_exception = "RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE";
whitelist_exception = "RBL_MAILSPIKE_WORST";
whitelist_exception = "RBL_MAILSPIKE_VERYBAD";
whitelist_exception = "RBL_MAILSPIKE_BAD";
returncodes {
RBL_MAILSPIKE_WORST = "127.0.0.10";
RBL_MAILSPIKE_VERYBAD = "127.0.0.11";
RBL_MAILSPIKE_BAD = "127.0.0.12";
RWL_MAILSPIKE_NEUTRAL [
"127.0.0.16",
"127.0.0.15",
"127.0.0.14",
"127.0.0.13",
]
RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE = "127.0.0.17";
RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD = "127.0.0.18";
RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD = "127.0.0.19";
RWL_MAILSPIKE_EXCELLENT = "127.0.0.20";
}
}
senderscore {
symbol = "RBL_SENDERSCORE";
rbl = "bl.score.senderscore.com";
}
abusech {
symbol = "RBL_ABUSECH";
rbl = "spam.abuse.ch";
}
sem {
symbol = "RBL_SEM";
rbl = "bl.spameatingmonkey.net";
ipv6 = false;
}
semIPv6 {
symbol = "RBL_SEM_IPV6";
rbl = "bl.ipv6.spameatingmonkey.net";
ipv4 = false;
ipv6 = true;
}
dnswl {
symbol = "RCVD_IN_DNSWL";
rbl = "list.dnswl.org";
ipv6 = true;
is_whitelist = true;
whitelist_exception = "RCVD_IN_DNSWL";
whitelist_exception = "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE";
whitelist_exception = "RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW";
whitelist_exception = "DNSWL_BLOCKED";
returncodes {
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE = "127.0.%d+.0";
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW = "127.0.%d+.1";
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED = "127.0.%d+.2";
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI = "127.0.%d+.3";
DNSWL_BLOCKED = "127.0.0.255";
}
}
}

*** End of section rbl ***

Thanks!

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 28.07.2017 16:31, mxo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh...? I haven't changed that config much. Seams default configs are
> incomplete?

It seems you have removed all received based rbls and found a bug in the
module. I will fix it soon.

[mxo...@gmail.com]

I haven't l removed anything, 100% default rspamd Debian install, only added the IPv4 true settings.

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 28.07.2017 17:35, mxo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I haven't l removed anything, 100% default rspamd Debian install, only
> added the IPv4 true settings.

https://github.com/vstakhov/rspamd/blob/master/conf/modules.d/rbl.conf

Your config is different.

[mxo...@gmail.com]

100% sure I didn't change anything. What is the best way to get the most current configs?

[Andrew Lewis]

Hi,

> default_ipv6 = true;

Not a good idea - ipv6 is turned on for RBLs which support it.

> default_received = true;

Not a good idea - now Received headers are used for all lists,
including whitelists.

>>> call to ((NULL)) failed (2): /usr/share/rspamd/lua/rbl.lua:379: bad
>>> argument #1 to 'ipairs' (table expected, got nil); trace: [1]:{[C]:-1

It seems an unlikely issue to me; not sure about it.

Best,
-AL.

[Andrew Lewis]

Hi,

> 100% sure I didn't change anything. What is the best way to get the
> most current configs?

General recommendation is to leave them untampered and allow package
manager to update them (custom configuration can go in overlay files).

You could try the recent patch for this module BTW:
https://github.com/vstakhov/rspamd/commit/70fe412fc5da55f3bd4e1ddeb03eace189d355c3

Best,
-AL.