On 17 Feb 2002 11:29:53 -0800 Craig Hughes wrote:
> I'll happily accept patches.
Yeah, I've been meaning to do it for several weeks now, but it's not going
to happen any time soon. I was hoping someone would see this and say "what
a great idea, I think I'll do that." Apparently not.
> In the
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 11:29:53AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> I'll happily accept patches. In the meantime, killing spamd won't cause
> any loss of mail, only loss of identification of spam messages for that
> fraction of a second when it's not listening, or for those messages
> already in proc
Modifying the site-wide config requires killing and restarting spamd, which
risks missing some mail or killing a running scan. It would be handy if
sending SIGHUP to the parent spamd process would cause it to reload the
rules cleanly. It should leave the listen up, and ideally it would
continue
