At 13:53 29/05/03 +0100, Richard Hopkins wrote:
--On Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:33 AM +1200 Simon Byrnand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
No,
It'
--On Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:33 AM +1200 Simon Byrnand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
No,
It's just that by an extremely annoying co-incidenc
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Stuart Gall wrote:
> > The ideal way to do it would be to send out all the queries in parallel
> > (asyncronously) at the start of the SA run, and receive the replies during
> > the rbl_timeout period, so only those which actually did time out will fail
> > to run. I have a
> The ideal way to do it would be to send out all the queries in parallel
> (asyncronously) at the start of the SA run, and receive the replies during
> the rbl_timeout period, so only those which actually did time out will fail
> to run. I have a suspicion this is not the way it works now howev
> >I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
> >about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
>
> No,
>
> It's just that by an extremely annoying co-incidence, one of the RBL
lists
> used by SA (all recent versions) died only a couple of days after 2.55's
> release, causing
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 19:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
> > >
> > > >I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
> > > >about 2.55 having a
At 19:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
> >about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
>
> No,
>
> It's just that by an extremely annoyi
On Thu, 29 May 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
>
> >I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
> >about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
>
> No,
>
> It's just that by an extremely annoying co-incidence, one of the RBL lists
>
At 10:40 28/05/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
No,
It's just that by an extremely annoying co-incidence, one of the RBL lists
used by SA (all recent versions) died only a couple of days aft
> > All I ever get is
> > debug: Ran run_rbl_eval_test rule RCVD_IN_NJABL ==> got hit
> > debug: Ran run_rbl_eval_test rule RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM ==> got hit
> > debug: Ran run_rbl_eval_test rule RCVD_IN_RELAYS_ORDB_ORG ==> got hit
> > debug: Ran run_rbl_eval_test rule RCVD_IN_UNCONFI
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Stuart Gall wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Gostl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "SpamAssassin listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:40 PM
> Subject: [SAtalk] 2.53 vs 2.55
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Gostl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SpamAssassin listserve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.53 vs 2.55
>
> I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awh
I just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.55. Was there some discussion awhile back
about 2.55 having a problem with RBL?
--
Jack Gostl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
