Hi All
I have spent the past hour looking through the archives and I can see lots
of people having similar problems to me but not actually identical, so here
I try instead.
I have:
Dual 1.4 P3 2 gig ram 40 gig RAID
running:
qmail 1.03, qmail-scanner 1.20, spamcontrol, spamd (2.60) and sophie (3.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Marcos A. Pendas wrote:
> Warning: I could not locate your pod2man program. Please make sure,
> your pod2man program is in your PATH before you execute 'make'
> First off, pod2man is installed:
> /usr/bin/pod2man
> Any ideas on how to fix this?
Weird as this sounds, s
about potential problems with this setting on Linux systems running perl
5.8.
Marcos A. Pendas
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:59 PM
To: sa list
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 on RH9
I've
I had exactly the same problem. I am building a new server on
RH9 and will migrate from RH8. I copied over the Makefile from
the previous RH8 install, typed make and it compiled although I was
leery of it. I ran make test which was 100% successful,
installed, but not on-line yet. Wasn't able to
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:09:34PM -0400, Michael Emdy wrote:
> I had the same problem and resolved it by KD's suggestion of:
The FAQ has a good thing about this too.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"And, although some really nasty mind-games were played, no entities were
physically harmed duri
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:59 PM
To: sa list
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 on RH9
I've tried compiling SA 2.60 from both both source and cpan and I keep
getting
the following errors:
Checking if your k
I've tried compiling SA 2.60 from both both source and cpan and I keep getting
the following errors:
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Warning: I could not locate your pod2man program. Please make sure,
your pod2man program is in your PATH before you execute 'make'
Writin
I just looked thru all the rules for 2.60 :)
A few things surprised me. I actually expected to see more rules. Its
amazing what a stock install of 2.60 will catch! Great job devs! I can
remove a lot of my simple rules when I upgrade.
Scoring?!?!? There are some weird scores. I downloaded the 2.
I've been seeing a lot of spam coming in since the switch to 2.6 where
the subject line has gibberish. Did this check get broken or something?
Has anyone else see it?
-=B
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceFo
Hi,
I am using spamassassin 2.60 with qmail-scanner-1.16 and qmail-1.03 and
vpopmail.
The smtp-port is opening qmail-scanner and spamassassin iss caled by
qmailscanner.
The Spam-Mails are marked as spam by the X-Spam-Status Email-header. This
works. But the subject is not rewritten.
my /etc/
So based on recommendations from the list, I am now using learn to journal
for updates in 2.60. I decreased the max_size to half, and it seems to be
running every couple of hours, which is acceptable. Thanks again for all the
suggestions.
bayes_learn_to_journal 1
bayes_journal_max_size 51200
> > I run a cron job to --force-expiry every 4 hours because I
> cant get it
> > to do it automatically, that is why it last expired at Noon. If I
> > look at my spamd debug log, I see this
>
> Unless you get a billion mails an hour (ish), this isn't
> going to help you much.
>
approx 2
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:33:34PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# echo "select FROM_UNIXTIME(1065632593)" |
> mysql
> FROM_UNIXTIME(1065632593)
> 2003-10-08 12:03:13
e. talk about overkill.
#!/usr/bin/perl
print scalar localtime($ARGV[0]),"\n";
> I run a
At 02:22 PM 10/8/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
So, with SA 2.6x and having an autolearn bayes db per user setup, is the
journal method recommended, or is it not needed in such a setup? Just
trying to figure out the best configuration for per user bayes
autolearning.
To be honest with you, I can't hel
I'm trying to figure out why auto-expiration of bayes tokens is not
working here local.cf contains
[EMAIL PROTECTED] spamassassin]# cat /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf | grep
bayes
# bayes
use_bayes 1
bayes_auto_learn1
bayes_auto_learn_thre
> >So this means we cannot run multiple sessions?
> >
> >I'm running SA 2.6 spamd/spamc, and getting this same error log.
> Not without error messages... however, as Theo very correctly pointed out
> the errors aren't fatal, it just means that an attempt at autolearning
> failed. SA itself keeps
Upgrading our copy of Mailscanner fixed this.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Wheat
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 lock errors
I haven't found a real answer i
At 12:50 AM 10/8/2003, Diego Weinstein wrote:
So this means we cannot run multiple sessions?
I'm running SA 2.6 spamd/spamc, and getting this same error log.
I'm receiving about 2 mail connections to the mta per second, so I have
sometimes about 20 spamd processes running, that's my top because I
Thanks, this helped a lot.
-Original Message-
From: Kai Risku [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Miércoles, 08 de Octubre de 2003 05:17 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Diego Weinstein
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60 lock errors
Enabling the Bayes journal should help ("bayes_learn_to_jour
ubject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60 lock errors
So this means we cannot run multiple sessions?
I'm running SA 2.6 spamd/spamc, and getting this same error log.
I'm receiving about 2 mail connections to the mta per second, so I have
sometimes about 20 spamd processes running, that's my top b
0-767 8282
Oy Arrak Software Ab http://www.arrak.fi
> -Original Message-
> From: Diego Weinstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:51 AM
> Posted To: SpamAssassin-talk
> Conversation: [SAtalk] 2.60 lock errors
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk]
, I need to run many procs in parallel.
Is there any other way to solve this problem?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Kettler
Sent: Martes, 07 de Octubre de 2003 07:27 p.m.
To: Jeffrey Wheat; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2
At 05:06 PM 10/7/2003, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
I haven't found a real answer in the archives...
What is the cause of this error:
Cannot open bayes databases /etc/mail/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock
failed: File exists
And is there a solution?
The normal cause of that error is two SA processes tryi
no one is accessing the bayes DB.
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Wheat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 lock errors
I haven't found a real answer in the archives...
What is the cause of this erro
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:06:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> What is the cause of this error:
> Cannot open bayes databases /etc/mail/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File
> exists
> And is there a solution?
It means the lock failed. It's normal with autolearning since you
may have mul
I haven't found a real answer in the archives...
What is the cause of this error:
Cannot open bayes databases /etc/mail/spamassassin/bayes_* R/W: lock failed: File
exists
And is there a solution?
Thanks,
Jeff
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://
Thanks for the help on this everyone.
Jeff
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Denenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:16 AM
> To: Jeffrey Wheat
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 Problems
>
>
> under X-Spa
under X-Spam-Level: i only see 6 stars, which means the number was
probably 6.99 something, and got rounded to 7 in the email, but didnt
actually hit the required 7.0
adam
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 09:01, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
> server, using exim as my mt
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:01:29AM -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
> server, using exim as my mta. Emails are
> being tagged as having the required hits
> but are not being tagged as spam. Here is
> a header. Help would be appreciated.
FYI, I just added an
003 8:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 Problems
>
> I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
> server, using exim as my mta. Emails are
> being tagged as having the required hits
> but are not being tagged as spam.
---
On 2003-10-07 09:01:29 -0400, Jeffrey Wheat wrote:
> I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
> server, using exim as my mta. Emails are
> being tagged as having the required hits
> but are not being tagged as spam. Here is
> a header. Help would be appreciated.
[...]
> X-Spam-Level: **
>
I am seeing problems with 2.60 on a FreeBSD
server, using exim as my mta. Emails are
being tagged as having the required hits
but are not being tagged as spam. Here is
a header. Help would be appreciated.
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from squerkle.cetlink.net ([209.198.2.7
> If you've installed them via CPAN, then the RPM
> database won't know that
> the dependencies are "resolved."
>
> Add --nodeps to your rpm install command to
> override--it won't complain,
> and everything should work.
>
> Nels Lindquist <*>
>
Tanks all,
That did it.
_
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:53:46AM -0500, Smart,Dan wrote:
> perl-DB_File-1.75-36.1.73
> Not sure how to check the libdb version, but I'm on RH 7.3
then you shouldn't have any problems, I have the exact same setup. BTW:
$ rpm -qa | grep ^db
db3-3.3.11-6
db3-devel-3.3.11-6
db1-1.85-8
db2-devel-2.
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 Upgrade - SpamD not using trained
| bayes databas e
|
| On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:53:46AM -0500, Smart,Dan wrote:
| > perl-DB_File-1.75-36.1.73
| > Not sure how to check the libdb version, but I'm on RH 7.3
|
| then you shouldn't have any problems, I have th
| -Original Message-
| From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:42 AM
|
| nothing from the SA side. if your libdb/DB_File is out of
| date, you may want to update them.
perl-DB_File-1.75-36.1.73
Not sure how to check the libdb version, but
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:39:17AM -0500, Smart,Dan wrote:
> Here are the sizes of the source. Yes they are big, but I wouldn't think
> 30,000 messages would be to huge for bayes. Is this not correct?
3 is small, no problem.
> 1. Do I need to feed it less spam to initialize?
up to you.
>
nk of?
<>
| -Original Message-
| From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:39 AM
| To: Smart,Dan
| Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 Upgrade - SpamD not using trained
| bayes databas e
|
| On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:33:06AM -0500, Smar
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:33:06AM -0500, Smart,Dan wrote:
> Could the database size have caused all my learned spam/ham to be
> eliminated? I noticed that the database looks like:
> -rw-rw-rw-1 filter filter4718592 Oct 3 08:21 .spamassassin_seen
> -rw-rw-rw-1 filter filter 5885
| -Original Message-
| From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:13 AM
|
| Just to check: are you learning to journal, and did you sync
| the journal before "dump magic"?
I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking if I tried a
| -Original Message-
| From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:13 AM
| Just to check: are you learning to journal, and did you sync
| the journal before "dump magic"?
Could the database size have caused all my learned spam/ham to be
eliminated
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:50:47AM -0500, Smart,Dan wrote:
> That worked. I did a --forget for both ham and spam files then relearned
> them.
> Now the --dump magic looks right. Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Mission control, I think we have a problem here...
Just to check: are you learning t
M
| To: Bart Schaefer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60 Upgrade - SpamD not using trained
| bayes databas e
|
| Bart,
| Thanks for the reply. Will try the process you propose, and
| get rid of the timepath statement, since timing is now gone from SA.
|
| <>
|
| | -Orig
Since you used CPAN to install Pod::Usage and HTML::Parser they won't show
up in the rpm database so you'll get dependency warnings. Use the
--nodeps option for rpm and it will ignore the dependency warnings.
Kev
Chris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Trying to install 2.60 using src rpms on RH
Trying to install 2.60 using src rpms on RH 7.1.
After doing rpm --rebuild spamassassin-2.60.src.rpm
and rpm -ivvh
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm...getting
failed
dependencies
error: failed dependencies:
perl(Pod::Usage) is needed by
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-1
perl(HTML::
ubject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60 Upgrade - SpamD not using trained
| bayes databas e
|
| On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Smart,Dan wrote:
|
| > For whatever reason, SA does not think I have any ham. Yet
| when I run
| > sa-learn --ham I get:
| >
| > debug: Failed to parse line in SpamAssa
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> > debug: bayes: DB_File module not installed, cannot use Bayes
>
> Sorry, a case of user-stupidity. Not being root I had to install in
> ~/lib/ and add a path to @INC in sa-learn, but got the path wrong.
>
> I still say it's a bug in sa-learn to not qui
> debug: bayes: DB_File module not installed, cannot use Bayes
Sorry, a case of user-stupidity. Not being root I had to install in
~/lib/ and add a path to @INC in sa-learn, but got the path wrong.
I still say it's a bug in sa-learn to not quit with an error if it can't
find DB_File, and without
esday, September
30, 2003 10:19 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60
Upgrade - SpamD not using trained bayes databas e
Got a direct email
suggesting that the wrong config file may be being used (thanks F.
Goudal). Here's the full spamd -D transcript. Note I've tr
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Smart,Dan wrote:
> For whatever reason, SA does not think I have any ham. Yet when I run
> sa-learn --ham I get:
>
> debug: Failed to parse line in SpamAssassin configuration, skipping:
> timelog_path /tmp/satiming
That worries me a little. I think it'll stop SA from rea
er pid: 19659logmsg: server
started on port 783/tcp (running version 2.60)
snip
Its not a
config file issue.
From: Smart,Dan Sent: Tuesday, September
30, 2003 8:22 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [SAtalk] 2.60
Upgrade - SpamD not using trained bayes databas e
Title: Blank Stationery
A little more info:
Just upgrade from SA 2.55 to 2.60. I've got everything working except for
SPAMD not using the Bayes database. I need help debugging.
I run this on RH 7.3 with
Postfix and Procmail
<>
From: Smart,Dan Sent: Monday, September
29, 200
The bayesian filter in SA 2.60 is broken on Red Hat 9, or, more likely,
Red Hat 9 is broken.
I am seeing the same symptoms as here:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6154723
sa-learn --dump
Use of uninitialized value in numeric lt (<) at
thinking my ~/.spamassassin/baye
Alton Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now even more weird. I just installed it on a Solaris 8 box and no
> problems.
>
> Are you guys sure it's the bug?
If you're running Perl 5.005, then SA will not use taint-mode since Perl
5.005 is so hopelessly old. Therefore, the taint-mode problems in
R
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Quinlan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: Theo Van Dinter
> Cc: Daniel Quinlan; Ben Goodwin; Darren Coleman;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 upgrade: razor2 check skipped
>
>
> Theo Van Dinter <[E
> >I'm trying to install 2.60 out of CPAN. I get the usual taint errors for
> >AIX, but after a "force" install, I try to run spamd and get:
> >
> >Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
> > /usr/opt/perl5/lib/5.6.0/Cwd.pm line 85.
> >
> >I haven't a clue as t
At 08:55 AM 9/26/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
I'm trying to install 2.60 out of CPAN. I get the usual taint errors for
AIX, but after a "force" install, I try to run spamd and get:
Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
/usr/opt/perl5/lib/5.6.0/Cwd.pm line 85.
I
I'm trying to install 2.60 out of CPAN. I get the usual taint errors for
AIX, but after a "force" install, I try to run spamd and get:
Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at
/usr/opt/perl5/lib/5.6.0/Cwd.pm line 85.
I haven't a clue as to what this means. Can
"Covington, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is this test deprecated in 2.60?
Because trusted_networks works better to avoid checking internal hosts.
It still works for 2.6x, though. The documentation clearly explains
this.
It even says "It will be removed in a future version."
> I've
Why is this test deprecated in 2.60?
I've had to disable RBLs all together because of too many FPs from
people who have DHCP/Cable Modems (on RBLs) and use their legitimate ISP
SMTP servers (not on RBLs). This setting would fix the problem if it
weren't disabled.
I'd like to un-disable RBLs
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel
Quinlan
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:09 PM
To: Theo Van Dinter
Cc: Daniel Quinlan; Ben Goodwin; Darren Coleman;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] 2.60 upgrade: razor2 check skipped
Theo
Hello All,
The emails I received telling me to fix my system time were well received.
That turned out to be the actual problem as to why I couldn´t get SA to
install. Thanks guys.
Regards
Trevor Rhodes
===
Powered by Linux-
Bob,
Did as you suggested Bob, but still ended up with the following. Thanks for
trying though.
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
Makefile written by ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.03
==> Your Makefile has been rebuilt. <==
==> Please rerun the make c
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
You could try resetting your system clock. Your mail had a Date: header
of January 2, 2002.
---
This
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:47 am, you wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:28:59AM +1100, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> > While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to
> > why and what I can do?
>
> It looks like you're missing the INSTALL file. Where did you get the
> tarball from?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 00:28:59 +1100 Trevor Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
Looks like make can't find INSTALL. Try
touch INSTALL
followed by
make clean
perl Makefile.PL
make
and see if
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 12:28:59AM +1100, Trevor Rhodes wrote:
> While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
> and what I can do?
It looks like you're missing the INSTALL file. Where did you get the
tarball from? I'd redownload it from http://spamassassin.org/rel
Hello again,
I got that last email a little wrong. I should have added the output. Here
it is...
Makefile out-of-date with respect to
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/Config.pm
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.0/i386-linux-thread-multi/CORE/config.h
Cleaning current config before rebuilding Ma
While installing I get the following error. Anyone have any clue as to why
and what I can do?
Checking if your kit is complete...
Warning: the following files are missing in your kit:
INSTALL
Please inform the author.
Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
M
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:49:52PM -0700, Dan Quinlan wrote:
> should also print out an install-time warning and stuff all of the major
> documentation files into /usr/share/doc/spamassassin if it doesn't
> already. I'm not optimistic, though.
The ones that are installed now in the RPM btw:
Chan
Ben Goodwin wrote:
>> OK, I see the reference to the patch, but the RPMS don't include it :-\
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They do in the tarball. But it's not a doc or a tool, or part of the
> actual code ...
It's in the INSTALL, the README, the announcement, and the Razor2.
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The ones that are installed now in the RPM btw:
>
> Changes INSTALL README README.spamd sample-nonspam.txt sample-spam.txt
I'd also include:
BUGS
COPYRIGHT
License
TRADEMARK
USAGE
Razor2.patch
> yeah, now that I've changed it. the
Ryan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doh, I remember looking in the perldoc and thinking "ok it isn't in the
> deprecated section", obviously I was wrong since it actually is. Is
> there another config option that would perform the same behavior or has
> that functionality been lost in 2.60
Doh, I remember looking in the perldoc and thinking "ok it isn't in the
deprecated section", obviously I was wrong since it actually is. Is
there another config option that would perform the same behavior or has
that functionality been lost in 2.60?
Ryan Moore
--
Perigee.net Corporation
Ryan Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By default SA will check the 9 previous hosts listed in the RECEIVED
> headers. You could lower that by using "num_check_received" directive in
> your usr_prefs/local.cf, I currently use a setting of four.
"num_check_received" is a deprecated setting in
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 03:48:15PM -0400, Ben Goodwin wrote:
> OK, I see the reference to the patch, but the RPMS don't include it :-\
They do in the tarball. But it's not a doc or a tool, or part of the
actual code ...
> The README says until at least 2.36 implying 2.36 fixes it, but the patch
g 2.36 fixes it, but the patch
says otherwise. Off to patch my installation.
Thanks!
-=| Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Darren Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 20
By default SA will check the 9 previous hosts listed in the RECEIVED
headers. You could lower that by using "num_check_received" directive in
your usr_prefs/local.cf, I currently use a setting of four.
Ryan Moore
--
Perigee.net Corporation
704-849-8355 (sales)
704-849-8017 (tech)
www.per
First, thanks so much for Spamassassin. It works so well!
I received an email with the following Received headers:
Received: from ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com
[24.93.36.230]) by waterloo.OrangeBlood.org (8.12.8/8.12.8)
with ESMTP id h8NDa2UW031261 for <[EMAIL
Hi
all,
My current setup is
that all of my company's mail goes through a smtp gateway with SA 2.60, Exim
4.20, Razor 2.36 and Perl 5.8. Since upgrading to SA 2.60 I have gotten
the following error in my logs:
spamd[32311]: razor2
check skipped: Illegal seek Insecure dependency in conne
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] 2.60 upgrade: razor2 check skipped
>
>
> I've searched and found similar issues but nothing that helps
> me out. I'm
> getting this since upgrading from 2.55 to 2.60:
>
> Sep 23 07:06:20 rs spamd[1936]: razor2 check skipped: B
I've searched and found similar issues but nothing that helps me out. I'm
getting this since upgrading from 2.55 to 2.60:
Sep 23 07:06:20 rs spamd[1936]: razor2 check skipped: Bad file descriptor
Insecure dependency in connect while running with -T switch at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-linux/IO/Soc
Mike Loiterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's where the problem was. I was always doing 'man
> Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf'. The old 2.5x series of manuals is still
> there when I use that command. I only get the new manuals when I do
> 'perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf'. Have a botched par
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Where are the latest Docs for the 2.6x sereis?
>
> They are only in the release candidates. run:
>
> man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
>
> or
>
> perldoc Mail::SpamAssassi
"Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where are the latest Docs for the 2.6x sereis?
They are only in the release candidates. run:
man Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
or
perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf
to read the configuration documentation if you have 2.60-rc6 installed.
> I saw a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Where are the latest Docs for the 2.6x sereis?
I saw a mention in a post made to the list about something called:
'add_header all Report _REPORT_' for use in 2.6x. According to the
mail, this replaced 'always_add_header 1'.
I added add_header all
Mike,
This should be fixed in the third patch contained in this bug:
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2452
Please test and let us know if it works.
Daniel
P.S. You wouldn't happen to be using Perl 5.005, would you?
---
Thi
> Just for a data point, rc4 did not overwrite local.cf on my linux
> machine. "perl Makefile.PL; make; make install"
Nor mine...
Regards,
Simon
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Just for a data point, rc4 did not overwrite local.cf on my linux
machine. "perl Makefile.PL; make; make install"
Mojo
On 12 Sep 2003, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> "Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Be careful! I just upgraded to 2.60rc4 and my
> > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf g
"Mike Loiterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be careful! I just upgraded to 2.60rc4 and my
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf got blown away.
>
> Not sure if this is just me or not.
How did you upgrade and overwrite it? "make install" ?
Can you try and see if it happens again? I can't repro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Be careful! I just upgraded to 2.60rc4 and my
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf got blown away.
Not sure if this is just me or not.
- --
Mike Loiterman
grantADLER
Tel: 630-302-4944
Fax: 773-868-0071
Email: [EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Pete O'Hara wrote:
> and couldn't find how to how many messages have been scanned in 2.60. It
> looks like the old bayes_msgcount file is no longer used. sa-learn
yes, it's no longer used. And you can't find out scan count from SA any longer.
--
Rando
Hi,
RTFM me if this is obvious but I looked googled, archived and read docs
and couldn't find how to how many messages have been scanned in 2.60. It
looks like the old bayes_msgcount file is no longer used. sa-learn
--dump doesn't seem to provide this info either.
From: 2.60: lib/Mail/SpamAssas
> Bayes FYI: 2.60 has a new Bayes backend and database format.
The very helpful information about the changes to the Bayes
database format, which you included in your announcement, does not
seem to appear in the documentation.
Would it be worth adding it to the README or INSTALL files?
Geoff Gib
Matt Thoene writes:
>I'm still having some trouble with 2.6...
>
>I've been using SA since...well a long time...and all versions up until
>2.6 have been problem free. I upgraded to 2.60-rc1, and now rc2, and I
>get the following errors during spam checks...
>
>Aug 25 17:00:07 ns1 spamd[1005]: Fail
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:41:35PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
> Ok, so to clarify, it's not a use line I need to add to spamd or
> anything right? Also, I have a good amount of spam set aside to do a new
> sa-learn so the new db shouldn't be an issue.
Correct. SA uses AnyDBM_File, which looks in a
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 9:59:31 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
>> Pardon my ignorance but how do I indicate that I would prefer DB_File?
> Just install it. But, fyi, you'd have to kill your current db and start
> anew, unles
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:50:48PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance but how do I indicate that I would prefer DB_File?
Just install it. But, fyi, you'd have to kill your current db and start
anew, unless you could find utilities to switch from sdbm to berkeley db.
--
Randomly Gen
On Monday, August 25, 2003 @ 8:04:19 PM [-0700], Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:38:00PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
>> Aug 25 17:00:07 ns1 spamd[1005]: Failed to run BAYES_80
>> SpamAssassin test, skipping: ^I(No write permission to
>> sdbm file at
>> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_p
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 06:38:00PM -0700, Matt Thoene wrote:
> Aug 25 17:00:07 ns1 spamd[1005]: Failed to run BAYES_80 SpamAssassin test, skipping:
> ^I(No write permission to
> sdbm file at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore.pm
> line 933, line 41. )
First, try
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
