Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:44 AM -0500 Satya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unfortunately, I haven't read the original article (I was hanging out on /. yesterday and picked up some bad habits). For those who missed the link: 5 produ

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On 2003/11/26, at 1:37, Frederick M Avolio wrote: At 06:39 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, Brook Humphrey wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3. This is your problem^^ I unde

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Nov 24, 2003 at 17:05, Logan Harbaugh wrote: >Regarding some of the other comments that have been made, some of you have >said that SA is not hard to install, taking no more than an hour or two to >download, install, configure and begin using. That is consistent with the 10 Actually, it took m

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

Hi Logan, First, thanks for addressing the list. I think it takes integrity and guts to respond rather than just run away. -Original Message- From: Logan Harbaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 8:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:55 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perl -MCPAN -e shell install /Mail:SpamAssassin/ Equivalent RPM: rpmbuild -ta \ http://useast.spamassassin.org/released/Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60.tar.gz rpm -Uvh spamassassin-tools-2.60-1.i386.rpm spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm \

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

--On Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:38 PM -0500 Frederick M Avolio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I will try your RPM for 2.60. Looks like I need 3 RPM files -- spamassassin-tools-2.60-1.i386.rpm, spamassassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm, and perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.60-1.i386.rpm. Correct, and true for Theo

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

At Tue Nov 25 16:37:16 2003, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > > So, SA 2.60 will only run with RH Linux > 7.3? I suspect it really is a > problem with the version of Perl I am running. But there is no dependency > for a particular version of Perl listed. (I am running v5.6.1 built for > i386-linux.)

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Nov 25, 2003 at 10:31, Stewart, John wrote: >It has a whole laundry list of prerequisites, and getting all of these >installed is not completely without pain and frustration. Doing it on a >non-Linux platform is nigh-impossible. Once you get it all set, it works >great, but it is *not* as easy

No longer Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-talk&m=106883816809749&w=2 > > The error was: > > Nov 14 11:02:12 lh spamd[17078]: Use of uninitialized value in open at > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/TextCat.pm line 63. This may

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

A custom rule, or a builtin rule? built-in. I looked back through one of the archives (the other seemed to be a little broken), but didn't see any messages from you around Nov 14. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-talk&m=106883816809749&w=2 The error was: Nov 14 11:02:12 lh spamd[170

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 10:22 am, Kris Deugau wrote: --snip-- didn't read most of above > Because it's been around for a while and has been proven to be decently > stable as a production server platform maybe? no because redhat changed thier policies and none of the big oems support any of th

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

Frederick M Avolio wrote: > Perhaps this is *my* problem. November 14 I mentioned having problems > upgrading to 2.60. One of the rules was giving an error. A custom rule, or a builtin rule? I've been running 2.60 on my own 7.3 server for around two months; and I just upgraded the production ser

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

Logan Harbaugh wrote: To all concerned, I apologize for the apparent maligning of SpamAssassin in my recent article in InfoWorld. In my original article, I stated that I used the 2.44 release of SpamAssassin for two reasons - because it was the version shipping with the latest release of Red Hat

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

At 05:55 PM 11/25/2003 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why ?? I installed SA on RH 7.3 without any problem at all.. With (almost) just two commands : perl -MCPAN -e shell install /Mail:SpamAssassin/ My guess is that the problems arise from some package being missing that is required, and the CPA

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

Brook Humphrey wrote: > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3. > *This* is your problem ^^ How so? (My emphasis added) I have a number of RedHat 7.3 servers which have

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

k] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum At 06:39 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, Brook Humphrey wrote: >On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3. >This is your problem^

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 08:37 am, you wrote: > So, SA 2.60 will only run with RH Linux > 7.3? I suspect it really is a > problem with the version of Perl I am running. But there is no dependency > for a particular version of Perl listed. (I am running v5.6.1 built for > i386-linux.) ah no i wa

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

-Original Message- From: Brook Humphrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 November, 2003 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum >On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: >> Yesterday I again tried to ins

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

At 06:39 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, Brook Humphrey wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3. This is your problem^^ I undersntad that that is the only thing that some corpor

RE: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

> Is SA hard to install? Not harder than any other program > based on Perl. While I agree it is not a good idea to compare SA 2.44 to current commercial anti-spam packages, I think those of you who say that SA is easy to install are being a little bit disingenuous. It has a whole laundry list o

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

On Tuesday 25 November 2003 05:18 am, Frederick M Avolio wrote: > Yesterday I again tried to install 2.60 on RedHat Linux 7.3. This is your problem^^ I undersntad that that is the only thing that some corporate types will support but it is very badly out o

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

Frederick M Avolio wrote: At 06:13 AM 11/25/2003 +0100, Mark wrote: Is SA hard to install? Not harder than any other program based on Perl. Perl is the underlying engine, which, in and by itself, has nothing to do with SA. It is good to keep that in mind; Perhaps this is *my* problem. November

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

At 06:13 AM 11/25/2003 +0100, Mark wrote: Is SA hard to install? Not harder than any other program based on Perl. Perl is the underlying engine, which, in and by itself, has nothing to do with SA. It is good to keep that in mind; Perhaps this is *my* problem. November 14 I mentioned having problems

Re: [SAtalk] An Open Letter to the SA-talk forum

An Open Letter to the SA-talk forumHello Logan, Mind if I chime in for a moment? :) > Regarding some of the other comments that have been made, some of you > have said that SA is not hard to install, taking no more than an hour or > two to download, install, configure and begin using. That is con