* Duncan Findlay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 16:50]:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:01:03PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I agree with you that fixing is only required if this might be a problem
> > for upgrades from woody. As this bug report is quite young, I think the
> > best thing really is to
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:01:03PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > IMHO it only *has* to be fixed in sarge if it affects upgrades from
> > 2.20, which is in stable. Otherwise, documentation on NEWS.Debian should be
> > enough.
It doesn't affect upgrades from 2.20 which have no Bayes at all. The
o
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 14:55]:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 12:30]:
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had mass
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 12:30]:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
> > > the previous upload, the transfer to sarge is
* Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 12:30]:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
> > the previous upload, the transfer to sarge is a bit delayed. I expect
> > that SA3 will go in o
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
> the previous upload, the transfer to sarge is a bit delayed. I expect
> that SA3 will go in one of these days, and it is _definitly_ on my
> direct watch list.
Hi,
* Ramunas Vabolis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041116 09:15]:
> I was wondering too, why there is no SA3 in sarge yet. A friend of mine
> asked to write a couple words about this new version from a system
> administrator view.
Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
Hello there,
I was wondering too, why there is no SA3 in sarge yet. A friend of mine
asked to write a couple words about this new version from a system
administrator view.
When I was using 2.6x series, the main tool to mark spam was bayes
database, and some others tests would help to identify s
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:56:25 -0500, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Under your scheme, Sarge would be bereft of all the packages
> that build on SA that have not changed, at the cost of something
> that has shown all evidence of being flakey and not ready for prime
> time y
Tollef Fog Heen [u] wrote on 10/10/2004 13:01:
* Sven Mueller
From the front page of spamassassin.org:
: Flexible: SpamAssassin encapsulates its logic in a well-designed,
: abstract API so it can be integrated anywhere in the email
: stream. The Mail::SpamAssassin classes can be used on a wide va
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:43:14AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
>
> Furthermore, we should all know that Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus is a CPU &
> memory hog. It needs tons of memory and fastest cpu ... always.
>
I'm using now bogofilter and razor, without CPU and memory problems at all.
So your
* Sven Mueller
| Tollef Fog Heen [u] wrote on 07/10/2004 10:00:
|
| > * Sven Mueller | Well, perl modules don't have an SO name.
| > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/lib > apt-cache show libvideo-capture-v4l-perl|
| > grep ^Depends
| > Depends: perlapi-5.8.3, perl (>= 5.8.3-2), libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4)
|
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 12:23:26PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I don't follow your logic here. First, you say that using SA via the Perl
> modules are not supported; then, you say that the SA Perl APIs were frozen
> and officially published seven months ago?
Oh, and checking on spamassass
* Sven Mueller
| Tollef Fog Heen [u] wrote on 07/10/2004 09:52:
| > * Duncan Findlay | Umm... I'd like to see that
| > 7122 root 15 0 660m 332m 4692 D 0.0 43.8 8:18.64 spamd
| > 7123 nobody15 0 287m 257m 4692 D 0.0 34.0 0:17.01 spamd
| > | Furthermore, you should use the
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 04:46:10AM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> The only official interfaces SpamAssassin ever provided (to the best of
> my knowledge) are:
> 1) calling spamassassin directly (as a commandline tool)
> 2) calling the spamc client (again, as a commandline tool)
> 3) accessing spamd
Sven Mueller [u] wrote on 10/10/2004 04:46:
Go learn perl, than come back.
Sheesh, I shouldn't write mail after prolonged discussions with my boss...
I apologize for the rudeness of that comment. Even though it was meant
somewhat jokingly, I realize it probably was too harsh. Sorry.
cu,
sven
Tollef Fog Heen [u] wrote on 07/10/2004 10:00:
* Sven Mueller
| Well, perl modules don't have an SO name.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/lib > apt-cache show libvideo-capture-v4l-perl| grep
^Depends
Depends: perlapi-5.8.3, perl (>= 5.8.3-2), libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4)
Seems like perl provides an API that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/2004 07:25 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Duncan Findlay
>
> | A lot of that is shared, but not reported as such by top/ps due to
> | changes in how the kernel reports shared memory. The kernel only
> | reports memory that is used in shared
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/07/2004 01:43 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * martin f krafft
>
> | What do you think?
>
> API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
>
> Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
> system. Per
Tollef Fog Heen [u] wrote on 07/10/2004 09:52:
* Duncan Findlay
| Umm... I'd like to see that
7122 root 15 0 660m 332m 4692 D 0.0 43.8 8:18.64 spamd
7123 nobody15 0 287m 257m 4692 D 0.0 34.0 0:17.01 spamd
| Furthermore, you should use the -m option to limit the number of
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Duncan Findlay
>
> | On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:18PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > * Emilio JesÃs Gallego Arias
> | >
> | > | For me sa work well:
> | >
> | > That doesn't help me.
> | >
> | > | Can you give some steps to reproduce such
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:10:14PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Greg Norris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.08.1601 +0200]:
> > Unless you're offering to provide relevant samples of the messages
> > in question, that response is quite worthless from
> > a troubleshooting perspective.
>
* Duncan Findlay
| On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:18PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > * Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias
| >
| > | For me sa work well:
| >
| > That doesn't help me.
| >
| > | Can you give some steps to reproduce such memory comsuption.
| >
| > Yeah, receive the mail/spam I get a
also sprach Greg Norris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.08.1601 +0200]:
> Unless you're offering to provide relevant samples of the messages
> in question, that response is quite worthless from
> a troubleshooting perspective.
Yes, please forward your spam to debian-devel so that we can all
feel it.
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:18PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias
>
> | For me sa work well:
>
> That doesn't help me.
>
> | Can you give some steps to reproduce such memory comsuption.
>
> Yeah, receive the mail/spam I get and you'll see it within twenty
> minute
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:24:18PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Can you give some steps to reproduce such memory comsuption.
>
> Yeah, receive the mail/spam I get and you'll see it within twenty
> minutes.
Unless you're offering to provide relevant samples of the messages in
question, that r
* Duncan Findlay
| A lot of that is shared, but not reported as such by top/ps due to
| changes in how the kernel reports shared memory. The kernel only
| reports memory that is used in shared libraries, I believe. More
| memory is shared between spamd and it's children.
My system ran out of swa
* Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias
| For me sa work well:
That doesn't help me.
| Can you give some steps to reproduce such memory comsuption.
Yeah, receive the mail/spam I get and you'll see it within twenty
minutes.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:37:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Now it's running at -m5 (the suggested value) and I have not had
> problems since. Of course, now I only get half the throughput, and
> my queue has not emptied for a whole day because SA is unable to
> keep up.
>
I had -m2 and ea
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:52:40AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Duncan Findlay
>
> | On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:43:47PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > * martin f krafft
> | >
> | > | What do you think?
> | >
> | > API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 01:24:57PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:37:19AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not really sure what you mean by rules backported from
> > > 3.0.0. Unfortunately, rules are fairly linked to releases.
> >
> > The above was a /direct/
El jue, 07-10-2004 a las 09:52 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen escribiÃ:
> * Duncan Findlay
>
> | On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:43:47PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > * martin f krafft
> | >
> | > | What do you think?
> | >
> | > API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:17:23PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
>
> That's silly. Maybe 2.x is obsolete but it catches about 90% of my spam.
> Which still leaves 20 or so per day in my inbox. But I'd be very pissed
> if upgrading my PII-233 with 128MB of RAM installs a program which just
> can
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:11:26PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Sorry, but the basic problem I'm speaking about has nothing to do with
> > volatile - but just that requiring substancially more memory might be a
> > bad idea. We still have inn1 and inn2 parallel (and I'm a happy user of
> > inn1),
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:52:15PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > And I have been running it ever since beta1 in a 512GB PII-350
>^
>
> That might explain why you haven
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:37:19AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you mean by rules backported from
> > 3.0.0. Unfortunately, rules are fairly linked to releases.
>
> The above was a /direct/ quote from the 2.64-1 changelog:
>
> spamassassin (2.64-1) unstable; urge
also sprach Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.07.1252 +0200]:
> > And I have been running it ever since beta1 in a 512GB PII-350 and my mail
> > has
>
> That might explain why you haven't been seeing any problems ;-)
I didn't think the x86 architecture can handle 512 Gb of RAM.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> And I have been running it ever since beta1 in a 512GB PII-350 and my mail has
^
That might explain why you haven't been seeing any problems ;-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:46:04PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not at all convinced this is so good. Didn't the RMs say
> something about 'no major new upstream releases', in order to be able to
> ship sarge this year?
2.64-1 is in testing. since sa3 has RCs, it will not get
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:29:38PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> Eh. spamassassin has had a long-standing, well-known API, and suddenly
> changes it. It is _SA_ which broke this, not the other applications.
SA has had a long-standing, well-known API in the many packages which went to
exp
Duncan Findlay wrote, Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:03 PM
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:51:46PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
[...]
>> And, BTW, since version 2.64 we have:
>>
>> - Rules backported from 3.0.0
>>
>> So though SA3 can make other things better (bayesian and so), SA2 is
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:03:18PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > (And my "home server" is a AMD K6-II 450, with 192MB RAM, not bad for my
> > own amount of daily mail)
>
> Perhaps you simply need to tune the -m option. Spamassassin has
> switched to a preforking model (similar to apache) rather
* Sven Mueller
| Well, perl modules don't have an SO name.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/lib > apt-cache show libvideo-capture-v4l-perl| grep
^Depends
Depends: perlapi-5.8.3, perl (>= 5.8.3-2), libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4)
Seems like perl provides an API that the module depends on, no?
| And actually, t
* Duncan Findlay
| On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:43:47PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > * martin f krafft
| >
| > | What do you think?
| >
| > API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
| >
| > Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
| > syst
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I really think spamassassin 3 should make it into Sarge, if at all
> possible, and not be held up by depending packages which aren't up
> to speed.
I'm currently inclined to leave 2.64 in sarge (as has been my
intention ever since
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 06:43:47PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * martin f krafft
>
> | What do you think?
>
> API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
>
> Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
> system. Per child.
Umm... I'd like to s
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 01:22:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The major change that I'm aware of is the nonsensical change of 'hits'
> to 'score'[1] in the output. Just provide both 'hits' and 'score' and
> this particular problem will go away. [This was the major issue facing
> spamass-milter,
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:37:04PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> > ??? Since when does exim4 use SA by default? AFAIK, you have to
> > specifically configure it to use it. Right? If so, there should be no
> > reason to remove it
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:51:46PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> But the problem is that spamassassin 2 works in usual people MX systems
> (which usually is your older desktop) while SA3 has a big problem in
> that machines, making it unusable.
>
> And, BTW, since version 2.64 we have:
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 23:05]:
> On Oct 06, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, if I dist-upgrade my mail server so a new spamassassin comes in, my
> > mail setup breaks. Now, that is clearly broken, and an RC bug on some
> > package.
> We are talking a
also sprach Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.2256 +0200]:
> Under your scheme, Sarge would be bereft of all the packages
> that build on SA that have not changed, at the cost of something that
> has shown all evidence of being flakey and not ready for prime time
> yet.
My
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:33:37 +0200, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1616
> +0200]:
>> This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in
>> order that we don't forget to remove said other packages from sarge
>> if
Steinar H. Gunderson [u] wrote on 06/10/2004 22:37:
>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:10:39PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
>>
>
??? Since when does exim4 use SA by default? AFAIK, you have to
specifically configure it to use it. Right? If so, there should be no
reason to remove it or for it t
On Oct 06, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if I dist-upgrade my mail server so a new spamassassin comes in, my
> mail setup breaks. Now, that is clearly broken, and an RC bug on some
> package.
We are talking about unstable.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [8393 idbw1qdMcWarw]
sig
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.2244 +0200]:
> That can be done of course - as well as we have exim4 in addition
> to exim, or inn2 in addition to inn. But in this case, reverting
> the latest upload of spamassassin might be a good idea.
I can't wait for Duncan to join in
El miÃ, 06-10-2004 a las 08:03 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
escribiÃ:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> > b. provide a new version that can interface with spamassassin 3.
>
> Just for the record, current amavisd-new can talk to spamassassin 3, even if
> not perfectly (chroots
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 22:40]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.2234 +0200]:
> > I guess spamassassin3 won't be added to sarge. Can you remember
> > the upload of the latest kde to unstable, and the explicit NO from
> > the release masters? Can you
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.2234 +0200]:
> I guess spamassassin3 won't be added to sarge. Can you remember
> the upload of the latest kde to unstable, and the explicit NO from
> the release masters? Can you remember that already before that it
> was said "no new upstre
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> ??? Since when does exim4 use SA by default? AFAIK, you have to
> specifically configure it to use it. Right? If so, there should be no
> reason to remove it or for it to conflict with SA3.
Well, if I dist-upgrade my mail server so a
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 16:35]:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1616 +0200]:
> > This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in
> > order that we don't forget to remove said other packages from
> > sarge if necessary.
> That preve
also sprach Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06. +0200]:
> The major change that I'm aware of is the nonsensical change of
> 'hits' to 'score'[1] in the output. Just provide both 'hits' and
> 'score' and this particular problem will go away. [This was the
> major issue facing spamass-
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1616 +0200]:
> > This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in
> > order that we don't forget to remove said other packages from
> > sarge if necessary.
>
> That prevents SA f
Steinar H. Gunderson [u] wrote on 06/10/2004 18:29:
>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:33:37PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>
>
I say: remove all the others from Sarge unless or until they comply
with SA 3.
>
>>
>> OK, so you want to remove exim4 from sarge, thus breaking installation
>> altog
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.2023
+0200]:
> How much network latency do you have? If -m10 is helping you, you
> must be waiting on TCP/IP requests like crazy.
I am not sure. A normal run via spamd takes about 3 seconds per
message. At peak times, the se
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Spamassassin 3 is finally in unstable. Thanks to Duncan (and
> possibly others involved)!
Well, I'm not at all convinced this is so good. Didn't the RMs say
something about 'no major new upstream releases', in order
martin f krafft wrote:
>also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1934 +0200]:
>
>
>>After running for a little while,
>>
>>
>[...]
>
>
>>I wouldn't say it uses half a gig of ram. Something else is going
>>on..
>>
>>
>
>I had -m10 passed to spamd for 2.64. When I upgraded,
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
> system. Per child.
This is a ridiculous big RSS. What are you telling SA to do? Load 20MB of
AWL and 20MB of Bayes data into memory?
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1934 +0200]:
> > After running for a little while,
> [...]
> > I wouldn't say it uses half a gig of ram. Something else is going
> > on..
>
> I had -m10 passed to spamd for 2.64. When I upgraded, I
also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1934 +0200]:
> After running for a little while,
[...]
> I wouldn't say it uses half a gig of ram. Something else is going
> on..
I had -m10 passed to spamd for 2.64. When I upgraded, I left that in
place. I almost hosed a server that went up
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>* martin f krafft
>
>| What do you think?
>
>API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
>
>Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
>system. Per child.
>
>
>
After running for a little while,
PID USER PR NI VI
* martin f krafft
| What do you think?
API changed generally means you bump soname. Why not for SA as well.
Also, SA3 is useless, as it eats about half a gig of RAM on my
system. Per child.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendl
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:33:37PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I say: remove all the others from Sarge unless or until they comply
> with SA 3.
OK, so you want to remove exim4 from sarge, thus breaking installation
altogether?
> I fail to see yours and Adrian's rationale for why spamassassin
Scripsit Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in order
> that we don't forget to remove said other packages from sarge if
> necessary.
Won't work, at least not by itself. Since we expect the other packages
to sooner or later be updated
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1616 +0200]:
> This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in
> order that we don't forget to remove said other packages from
> sarge if necessary.
That prevents SA from entering Sarge.
I say: remove all the others from S
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> If you'd be so kind as to refer to #274993, I think we have
> a problem. A number of packages (see the bug report) depend on
> spamassassin, but some are not going to work with version 3, which
> changed the API considerably. The ex
On Oct 06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, but the basic problem I'm speaking about has nothing to do with
> volatile - but just that requiring substancially more memory might be a
> bad idea. We still have inn1 and inn2 parallel (and I'm a happy user of
> inn1), for similar reas
* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 15:05]:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin 3 on
> > > > my workstation due to
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > If this is not solved, we really should consider to re-introduce
> > spamassassin 2 as spamassassin, and the version 3 as spamassassin3.
>
> Or we should not con
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:32:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> If this is not solved, we really should consider to re-introduce
> spamassassin 2 as spamassassin, and the version 3 as spamassassin3.
Or we should not consider it.
In such case 2.64 will become obsolete even faster than 2.20 did
* Francesco P. Lovergine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041006 14:20]:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Spamassassin 3 is finally in unstable. Thanks to Duncan (and
> > possibly others involved)!
> Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin 3 on
> m
also sprach Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1418 +0200]:
> Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin
> 3 on my workstation due to performace problems. It is really
> a memory and cpu hog.
I have to confirm.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Spamassassin 3 is finally in unstable. Thanks to Duncan (and
> possibly others involved)!
>
Just for record, I and a few other people removed spamassassin 3 on
my workstation due to performace problems. It is reall
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> b. provide a new version that can interface with spamassassin 3.
Just for the record, current amavisd-new can talk to spamassassin 3, even if
not perfectly (chroots needs some... tweaking).
As for the bugs, go ahead. spamassassin 2 is pretty much us
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> If you'd be so kind as to refer to #274993, I think we have
> a problem. A number of packages (see the bug report) depend on
> spamassassin, but some are not going to work with version 3, which
> changed the API considerably. The ex
Hi folks,
Spamassassin 3 is finally in unstable. Thanks to Duncan (and
possibly others involved)!
If you'd be so kind as to refer to #274993, I think we have
a problem. A number of packages (see the bug report) depend on
spamassassin, but some are not going to work with version 3, which
changed t
85 matches
Mail list logo
