At 1/15/2004 06:04 PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
>> The last line is the new one, and it escapes any % signs in the
>> Message-ID. I don't use spamd so I can't confirm this to be the case,
>> but seems likely as I think it also uses Sys::Syslog.
>
>That shouldn't matter as spamd uses
> syslog
At 1/12/2004 02:47 PM -0500, Mick Szucs wrote:
>A message arrived the other day that when it was processed by spamd was logged
>in /var/log/messages instead of /var/log/maillog (like all other mail
>processed by spamd.) The message in question contained a high volume of
>control characters in t
On January 13, 2004 01:34 pm, Chadwick L. Sorrell wrote:
> > A message arrived the other day that when it was processed by spamd was
> > logged in /var/log/messages instead of /var/log/maillog (like all other
> > mail processed by spamd.) The message in question contained a high
> > volume of cont
> Hi all,
>
> I did check the archives for the answer to this one, but the keywords involved
> are vague enough that it may have been answered and I couldn't find it.
>
> A message arrived the other day that when it was processed by spamd was logged
> in /var/log/messages instead of /var/log/m
Hrm, must have been ignored because it didn't say "Habeas" in the subject
line. I'd love an opinion or two as to whether or not the problem I've
outlined below is something to be concerned about which merits further
testing or not.
Thanks,
---
Hi all,
I did check the archives for the answer
Hi all,
I did check the archives for the answer to this one, but the keywords involved
are vague enough that it may have been answered and I couldn't find it.
A message arrived the other day that when it was processed by spamd was logged
in /var/log/messages instead of /var/log/maillog (like a
