Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Gunter Ohrner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Wednesday, 27. February 2002 18:38 schrieb Timothy Demarest: > >> So I tried adding Razor support to SpamAssassin which - unfortunately - > >> razor check skipped: undefined Razor::Client > There definitely seems to be a problem with Razor 1.20 and

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Craig R Hughes
D] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration > > > > --On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:44 PM -0800 "Michael C. Hanson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Michael C. Hanson
On 2/27/02 14:24, "Craig R Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes -- I suspect this is a razor bug probably where the Razor module is not > loading cleanly (ie not returning 1 or something like that) when loaded by SA. > I'll take a closer look at it in a bit. > > C > Yeah, I reverted ba

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Craig R Hughes
Michael C. Hanson wrote: > >> Reverting to razor-agent 1.19 works fine: > >> > >> SA 2.1 with razor 1.19: > > So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1.19? I'm having > the same exact issues with Razor 1.20 Yes -- I suspect this is a razor bug probably where the Razor module

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Timothy Demarest
--On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:44 PM -0800 "Michael C. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, would the suggestion in the mean time be to go back to 1.19? I'm > having the same exact issues with Razor 1.20 That's working for me, and is probably the best until Vipul returns. Here is a

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Michael C. Hanson
d, 27 Feb 2002 09:38:16 -0800 >> From: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration >> >>>> So I tried adding R

RE: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Mike Loiterman
e- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamassassin-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Timothy Demarest > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Timothy Demarest > Subject: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration >

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Craig R Hughes
y Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration > > >> So I tried adding Razor support to SpamAssassin which - unfortunately - > >> did not work. Vipul's Razor by itself seems to be fully functional > &

Re: [SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Jeremy A. Mates
* Timothy Demarest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-02-27T09:44-0800]: [JAM 10 lines snipped] > > There definitely seems to be a problem with Razor 1.20 and SpmAssassin 2.1. > I'm having the same problem under Solaris 8 with perl 5.6.1. Note that > Razor::Client is found on my system: I can confirm t

[SAtalk] Re: problems with SpamAssassin's Razor-integration

2002-02-27 Thread Timothy Demarest
>> So I tried adding Razor support to SpamAssassin which - unfortunately - >> did not work. Vipul's Razor by itself seems to be fully functional >> (tested with razor-check) but if invoked by SpamAssassin I just get >> >> razor check skipped: undefined Razor::Client > > First, make sure that Per