d downloading the source and making manually. I get the same
failure during 'make test'.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Landry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:34 PM
To: Jeff Funk
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade problem . . .
Did you install the Time::Hi
I'm trying upgrade on CPAN and I keep getting failed tests like below:
t/spamc_c_stdout_closed.spamd start failed: log: debug: Score set 0 chosen.
debug: Preloading modules with HOME=/tmp/spamd-57489-init
Use of inherited AUTOLOAD for non-method Time::HiRes::time() is deprecated at
../blib/li
I did an upgrade/install from 2.44 to 2.60 and I'm not sure what is going on?
I installed 2.60 (tgz file) everything went ok. but had error messages in my mail log
telling me that i need 2.44 but running 2.60. I unistalled both versions and
reinstalled 2.60 and now it's not working. I'm using
/mail/spamassassin and restart spamd
Todd
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MIKE
YRABEDRA
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:37 AM
To: SPAMASSASSIN
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?
on 11/17/03 10:13 AM, Todd Schuldt at [EMAIL PROTECTED
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens
> MIKE YRABEDRA
> Verzonden: maandag 17 november 2003 17:37
> Aan: SPAMASSASSIN
> Onderwerp: Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?
>
>
> on 11/17/03 10:13 AM, Todd Schu
Mike,
Check out Chris Santerre's emporium...
http://www.merchantsoverseas.com/wwwroot/gorilla/sa_rules.htm
CT
- Original Message -
From: "MIKE YRABEDRA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SPAMASSASSIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1
on 11/17/03 10:13 AM, Todd Schuldt at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> SA 2.6 with popcorn/weeds/evil rulesets added
What are these rulesets and how are they added?
++
Mike Yrabedra (President)
323 Incorporated
Home of MacDock.com, MacAgent.com and MacShi
It's hard to quantify as we didn't have a great deal get through with 2.5x,
but I would have to say that in the short (6 months or so) that I've been
using SA, 2.60 is the best version so far.. still staggered that it's all
free!
regards,
Paul
--
Paul Hutchings
Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
Tel
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 05:44
To: SpamAssassin List
Subject: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?
Yo ye cognoscenti,
I've been running 2.55 since it came out, but since about the time
2.60 was released have been immersed in other things and not
following the list discu
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jess
Anderson
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:44 AM
To: SpamAssassin List
Subject: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?
Yo ye cognoscenti,
I've been running 2.55 since it came out, but since about the time
2.6
Anything that needs to be watched out for when upgrading from source install
to CPAN? I usually do source, but figured I would try CPAN for SA, as it has
worked great for other packages.
Any files I need to make sure are deleted? Any little ones hiding in the
shadows to bite me in the bum? :)
Als
At 01:04 PM 10/19/2003, Masoud Pajoh wrote:
I was running SA 2.5 with kmail and all was well, then I upgraded to version
2.60. Now, SA stopped pocessing incoming mail all togther.
How can I correct this.
Well, what exactly do you mean by "stopped processing incoming mail?" Do
you mean that the me
Hi all:
I was running SA 2.5 with kmail and all was well, then I upgraded to version
2.60. Now, SA stopped pocessing incoming mail all togther.
How can I correct this.
I use RH 9 with all the updates.
Thanks for any suggestion, and sorry if this is an FAQ, I looked but could not
find the answ
At 05:20 AM 10/16/03 -0700, Doug Wolfgram wrote:
I just deleted 2.55 from my system and installed 2.60 via RPMs. Although
spamassassin is running (ps -ax | grep spamd) when i run the spam test
message through it says spam score:0 and 'template not found'
What template is it looking for??
It's lo
I just deleted 2.55 from my system and installed 2.60 via RPMs. Although
spamassassin is running (ps -ax | grep spamd) when i run the spam test
message through it says spam score:0 and 'template not found'
What template is it looking for??
D
___
"Interactive Media that
--On Monday, October 13, 2003 6:04 PM -0400 "Carl R. Friend"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do. 2.60 fixes quite a few things, shuts down now-long-gone
> RBLs, improves scoring, and (even though I was originally a
> skeptic) performs well enough (sans Bayes).
And like anti-virus software, anti-
At 03:16 AM 10/6/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
>> version=2.60
>>Why is autolearn=no ?
> What are your autolearn thresholds set to?
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 7
well, then it won
At 04:54 AM 10/5/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
Hallo SA-List,
since I upgraded of V 2.60 have I no tests (only bayes).
--snip
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60
--snap
Why is autolearn=no ?
What are your autolearn thresholds set to?
Bear in mi
Hallo Matt Kettler,
am Montag, 6. Oktober 2003, 03:00:29, schriebst Du:
> At 04:54 AM 10/5/03 +0200, Jim Knuth wrote:
>>Hallo SA-List,
>>
>> since I upgraded of V 2.60 have I no tests (only bayes).
>>--snip
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
>> versio
Hallo SA-List,
since I upgraded of V 2.60 have I no tests (only bayes).
--snip
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60
--snap
Why is autolearn=no ?
--
Viele Grüße, best regards
Jim Knuth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Zitat
--
Bei den
Hallo SA-List,
since I upgraded of V 2.60 have I no tests (only bayes).
--snip
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60
--snap
Why is autolearn=no ?
--
Viele Grüße, best regards
Jim Knuth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Zitat
--
Kolibris
Hi,
i have fetchmail, sendmail, procmail and spamassassin 2.44 running and
everything works like a charm.
as the description of the rpm-package of spamassassin says, i just added:
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin
INCLUDERC=/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin-default.rc
to my /etc/proc
At 02:47 PM 8/31/03 +0200, Andreas Mueller wrote:
But NOTHING is filtered anymore? Why?
First thing I'd suggest is running spamassassin --lint.
This will tell you if spamassassin is unhappy with your user_prefs or
local.cf and is spitting it out as a result. There are a few options that
were pre
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Scott Rothgaber wrote:
> Good Morning!
>
> After hearing about SpamAssassin on the BSDI-Users list I decided to
> build a box and check it out. Most impressive! I'm running v2.43 from
> the FreeBSD 5.0 ports collection.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) This version seems to be doing th
Good Morning!
After hearing about SpamAssassin on the BSDI-Users list I decided to
build a box and check it out. Most impressive! I'm running v2.43 from
the FreeBSD 5.0 ports collection.
Questions:
1) This version seems to be doing the trick for me. I'm still tweaking
some of the values but I'm
Mark said:
> Perhaps useful to know for others: Perl 5.005_03 needs "Errno.pm" in spamd
> 2.43. This does not show up on needed dependencies, nor in the "make test"
> run. The test just fails to start spamd (and you do not get to see why, cuz
> it redirects STDERR to /dev/null).
that's wierd --
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
- Original Message -
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jonathan Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade
> >
> > How easy is it to upgrade from 2.01
>
> How easy is it to upgrade from 2.01 to 2.43? Do I need to make substantion
> config-changes? Is an upgrade even needed?
>
It's very easy. I did it not too long ago.. just did "install
Mail::SpamAssassin" from CPAN.
You might want to check the new manpage for spamd, as I think there were a
few
Hello,
How easy is it to upgrade from 2.01 to 2.43? Do I need to make substantion
config-changes? Is an upgrade even needed?
Thanks!
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Well, I don't think this debug info is from SA (I've never seen this info
> before). Personally, I would run spamassassin with a -D. I'm going to
> guess the debug info is from DCC, Pyzor, or Razor (although it doesn't
> look like that either). T
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:05:25PM -0500, Drew Dowling wrote:
> I've been a happy and silent user of SA for a while now. Running 2.30 now
> for a whild I recently got a wild hair and decided to spend the ten
> minutes needed to upgrade to 2.43. I'm just using SA as a user with
> procmail, so the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been a happy and silent user of SA for a while now. Running 2.30 now
for a whild I recently got a wild hair and decided to spend the ten
minutes needed to upgrade to 2.43. I'm just using SA as a user with
procmail, so the readme seemed cool to m
Paulo Ney de Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our sys-admin here in Berkeley upgraded SpamAssassin this week to
> version 2.42 and all of a sudden it stop working form me!
> After a lot of research I found that the culprit was an EMPTY file named
> "rules" in my home directory that was causing
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Kip Turk wrote:
> I seem to remember something on the list regarding critical failures on
> upgrades from 2.20 to 2.4x, but couldn't google it out of the archives.
> If I remember correctly, I need to install 2.3x, then upgrade to 2.42.
No, that's no
I recently attempted to upgrade on of my systems using the CPAN install
feature. Since I was running 2.20 and CPAN pulled down 2.42, I ran into
some very bad things. As soon as 2.42 was installed, the system locked
up. No errors, just complete system lock up. At the console, I came up
wit
I upgraded from 2.31 to 2.41 w/Razor2 about a week ago and have noticed a
substantial improvement. Many fewer false-positives, (none so far) and no
false negatives. I'd say go ahead and upgrade.
Darren
_
I noticed since the latest version was released that a va
I noticed since the latest version was released that a variety of people
have mentioned that it hasn't worked as well (rules changes) for them as
the earlier version. I remember someone suggesting waiting for 2.5 before
updating. Any thoughts on this? I would like to update but not sure
whether to
I am ready (I think) to upgrade from 2.20 but I have made a large number
of changes to the actual spamd/spamc, spamassassin and the rule sets
themselves.
I have the new version downloaded and ready to go, but I am assuming
that if I backup everything up and install the new version, I would just
n
can someone confirm that the upgrade path from 2.01
to 2.20
is simply to install again? I can't find any
mention of upgrading
in the source or documentation (other than the
Makefile
warning that uninstall is deprecated) but can't
find any
reason not to re-install
it would appear that any
I'm using the standard IMAP server that comes with Red Hat LInux 7.1.
I thought procmail was a mail delivery program???
BTW. I have a .procmailrc in my user's home dir that filters mail to subfolders
and works no problem -- only when I have that global procmailrc file activated
does mail fail
I'm guessing you need to use some kind of deliver program to get the
mail to the right place -- what IMAP server is that? It seems to not be
expecting the user's mail spool to change without knowing about it,
which seems like a weird thing to do in a mail server, but as I said, it
probably wants
goh yeah, and this in my main log when the mailbox is accessed:
>
> Mar 28 22:58:55 bacon imapd[8163]: Fatal mailbox error user={user_name}
> host={a_host} [{an_ip}] mbx=/var/spool/mail/{user_name}: Unexpected changes to
> mailbox (try restarting): Return-Path: Jeffrey J. Bacon wrote:
> > I ha
oh yeah, and this in my main log when the mailbox is accessed:
Mar 28 22:58:55 bacon imapd[8163]: Fatal mailbox error user={user_name}
host={a_host} [{an_ip}] mbx=/var/spool/mail/{user_name}: Unexpected changes to
mailbox (try restarting): Return-Path: I have:
>
> VERBOSE=yes
> LOGABSTRACT=al
I have:
VERBOSE=yes
LOGABSTRACT=all
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail/procmaillog.`date +%m-%d-%y`
:0fw
| spamc -u $LOGNAME
in my /etc/procmailrc file and then this in my main procmail log:
procmail: Executing "spamc,-u,{user_name}"
procmail: [8286] Thu Mar 28 22:58:05 2002
procmail: Assigning
"PATH=/
For all debugging purposes, I suggest one runs spamd without the -d,
and maybe with -D to see debug information onf screen.
The running as root message is just a warning, not an error, and
should not prevent spamc/d to tag the message (it can prevent it to
create user preferences, for that purooi
I'll throw my 2-cents in and let y'all know I have the same problem
Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Quoting Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>>when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
>>>spamc seems to work; however, when I receive an incoming mail message, I
>>
>>get
>>
>>Does it work or
Quoting Olivier Nicole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
> > spamc seems to work; however, when I receive an incoming mail message, I
> get
>
> Does it work or not? Do you get a SA header in the output?
Running spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
as a non-roo
> when I run spamc < sample-spam.txt > spam.out
> spamc seems to work; however, when I receive an incoming mail message, I get
Does it work or not? Do you get a SA header in the output?
> the same error in the maillog:
>
> Mar 27 16:55:05 mail spamd[2590]: connection from sandman.realtyroad.co
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:54:37PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using the src .tar.gz file I downloaded and compiled myself.
>
> perl Makefile.PL
> make
> make install (as root)
>
> I may have spoken too soon, becuase I am still having the same exact problem
> as before.
> when
> I see similar behavior, but my spamassasin is working, but I still see in
> my maillog the line about "Still running as root:"
> Mar 27 19:26:48 spamassasin spamd[25004]: identified spam (25/5) for
> kenk:99 in 1 seconds.
> Mar 27 19:28:11 spamassasin spamd[24987]: connection from
> mercury.s
-talk@lists. sourceforge. net
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 2.11 from 2.01 and now
> my spamd is
I see similar behavior, but my spamassasin is working, but I still see in
my maillog the line about "Still running as root:"
Mar 27 19:26:48 spamassasin spamd[25004]: identified spam (25/5) for
kenk:99 in 1 seconds.
Mar 27 19:28:11 spamassasin spamd[24987]: connection from
mercury.shreve.ne
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:21:54PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Apparently, the previous version of SA (2.01) used
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as the configuration file, and this new
> version requires the configuration file to be called: spamassassin.cf
That's odd, I'm using that file wi
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:21:54PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> I figured out the problem...
>
> Apparently, the previous version of SA (2.01) used
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf as the configuration file, and this new
> version requires the configuration file to be called: spamassassin.cf
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:29PM -0800, Gene Ruebsamen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 2.11 from 2.01 and now my spamd is
> not working properly. All mails are getting through, and nothing it going
> through spam assassin.
>
> The Spamassassin perl script works fine
, you
may want to put this into the FAQ.
Thank You,
Gene Ruebsamen
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gene
> Ruebsamen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: Spamassassin-talk@lists. sourceforge. net
> Subject
Hello,
Just recently upgraded to SpamAssassin 2.11 from 2.01 and now my spamd is
not working properly. All mails are getting through, and nothing it going
through spam assassin.
The Spamassassin perl script works fine with the test mails; however, I have
been using the spamc/spamd combo since 2
58 matches
Mail list logo