RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade problem . . .

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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

/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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

> -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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

2.60 works great. It works much better when you use Bayes and network checks. Note that both of the latter have been significantly improved over 2.55. - dan -- Dan Kohn -Original Message- From: Jess Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade or Stay?

We went to SA 2.6 the day code went final, would never go back to 2.55. Noticed a marked drop in scan times and reduced false positives and false negatives immediately. SuSE 9.0 Pro OS (was RH 7.3 until recently) Communigate Pro 4.1.7 MTA SA 2.6 with popcorn/weeds/evil rulesets added Todd -O

Re: [SAtalk] upgrade to 2.60 broke SA

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

Re: [SAtalk] upgrade

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade

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

Re: [SAtalk] upgrade spamassassin from 2.44 to 2.55 on redhat 9

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to 2.5?

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

Re: SOLVED (Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade)

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 --

SOLVED (Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade)

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]&

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade

- 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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade

> > 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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to 2.43 = debug?

-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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to 2.43 = debug?

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade breaks SpamAssassin

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade/rollback issues

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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade 2.41?

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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=/

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

> 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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

> 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

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

-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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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

Re: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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 >

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 > not working properly. All mails are getting through, and nothing it going > through spam assassin. > > The Spamassassin perl script works fine

RE: [SAtalk] Upgrade to SpamAssassin 2.11 (spamd not working!)

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 I could not find anything about that in the docs. If this is correct, you