On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 07:19:56PM +0200, Hans-Dieter Stich wrote:
>
> hi there,
>
> if anyone is interested, I have attached my german
> translation of the SpamAssassin messages.
>
> there are some body test messages missing, I will add them
> asap.
>
Done. Please, check it out and diff it a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sometime around 3am SA died on me. I use the current CVS version. I
cannot say why SA has such a short life as there are no error messages
in the syslog or the mail log file.
If anyone knows of a way of tracking SA so that I can catch whatever
stoppe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Jesus Climent stated:
>>
>> if anyone is interested, I have attached my german
>> translation of the SpamAssassin messages.
>>
>> there are some body test messages missing, I will add them
>> asap.
>>
>
> Done. Please, check
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Okay, here is a good one,
I sent out a couple of spam reports this morning using Richochet. 2 of
the messages were bounced and returned via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is whitelisted.
However both the return messages ended up in my spam directory :) Is
Hello!
I'm trying to compile Spamassassin 2.1.1 on an AIX 4.3.3.0 box and get this
message :
cc -D_ALL_SOURCE -D_ANSI_C_SOURCE -D_POSIX_SOURCE -qmaxmem=16384
-I/usr/local/include -q32 -D_LARGE_FILES -qlonglong -O spamd/spamc.c \
-o spamd/spamc -L/usr/local/lib -b32 -lbind -lns
Michael H. Martel wrote:
MHM> I'm trying to compile Spamassassin 2.1.1 on an AIX 4.3.3.0 box and get this
MHM> message :
MHM>
MHM> "spamd/spamc.c", line 60.32: 1506-045 (S) Undeclared identifier EX__MAX.
Sounds like AIX needs to be added to the list of OSes which don't define this.
Any idea
I've been trying to think how to correctly relocate $(LOCAL_RULES_DIR)
relative to $(PREFIX) when building SA. The problem of course being that
in the "normal" case, /etc is not relative to $Config{prefix}, which is
the default value of $(PREFIX). This is particularly important when
a non-root u
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>I've been trying to think how to correctly relocate $(LOCAL_RULES_DIR)
>relative to $(PREFIX) when building SA. The problem of course being that
>in the "normal" case, /etc is not relative to $Config{prefix}, which is
>the default value of $(PREFIX). This is particularly i
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> I would say that it should be called ROOT rather than PREFIX, but yes,
PREFIX is the standard Makefile.PL name for this; SA can't change it
without breaking CPAN compatibility, etc. This is orthogonal to stuff
that would have to go in the .spec file
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>>Why should it be necessary to be root in order to build an RPM?)
>>
>
>No ... in fact, to build an RPM with the buildroot different from the
>target install tree, you'd have more success as a non-root user. Right
>now, installing NEVER puts local.cf anywhere but /etc/mail/
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 12:21:35PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> I've been trying to think how to correctly relocate $(LOCAL_RULES_DIR)
> relative to $(PREFIX) when building SA. The problem of course being that
> in the "normal" case, /etc is not relative to $Config{prefix}, which is
> the defaul
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Rob McMillin wrote:
> >No ... in fact, to build an RPM with the buildroot different from the
> >target install tree, you'd have more success as a non-root user. Right
> >now, installing NEVER puts local.cf anywhere but /etc/mail/spamassassin
> >
> That's not my experience --
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 12:21:35PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
>>I've been trying to think how to correctly relocate $(LOCAL_RULES_DIR)
>>relative to $(PREFIX) when building SA. The problem of course being that
>>in the "normal" case, /etc is not relative to $Config{pref
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
> violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
I'd love to agree with you, but what's /usr/local/etc for, then? What
about e.g. Apache with /usr/local/conf/?
Configurat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 14 April 2002 17:54 pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure
> > to do so is a violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy
> > Standard).
>
> I'd love
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Richie Laager wrote:
> From: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.1.html
>
> The root filesystem contains many system-specific
> configuration files. ...
>
[...]
>
> So, /usr/local/etc doesn't exist after a default install.
> Okay, so let's create it. There's no restric
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 03:11:00PM -0700, Rob McMillin wrote:
> >No. That is an awful idea.
> >Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
> >violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
> >
> But I would say the point here is not to violate it but to permit RP
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 03:54:03PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
>
> > Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
> > violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
>
> I'd love to agree with you, but what's /usr/loca
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 03:54:03PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
|
| > Configuration files should ALWAYS be under /etc/. Failure to do so is a
| > violation of the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard).
|
| I'd love to agree with you, but what's /usr/loca
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > Configuration files for standard system software should always be under
> > /etc/. The question is whether it should be possible to install SA as
> > something other than "standard system software."
>
> Define 'standard system software.'
This is b
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> $(PREFIX) should normally be '' (or '/' if paths are properly
> normalized after expansion).
You're thinking of GNU autoconf. SA uses Perl's ExtUtils::MakeMaker.
MakeMaker does not define $(PREFIX) that way. MakeMaker defines $(PREFIX)
as (by default) $Conf
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 05:32:38PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
| On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
|
| > $(PREFIX) should normally be '' (or '/' if paths are properly
| > normalized after expansion).
|
| You're thinking of GNU autoconf.
That's where most of my experience lies, and it seems nicel
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> | MakeMaker does not define $(PREFIX) that way. MakeMaker defines
> | $(PREFIX) as (by default) $Config{prefix} from Perl's Config module.
> | That is normally /usr or /usr/local, not /, and Makefiles generated
> | with MakeMaker install into $(PREFIX)/bin $(
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 07:31:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | The question is whether it should be possible to install SA as
> | something other than "standard system software."
>
> Right. I like the approach of
> $ ./configure --prefix=$HOME
> $ make
> $ make install
>
> (for systems o
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 06:56:08PM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
>
> > | MakeMaker does not define $(PREFIX) that way. MakeMaker defines
> > | $(PREFIX) as (by default) $Config{prefix} from Perl's Config module.
> > | That is normally /usr or /usr/local, not /,
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>I don't know anything about RPM's (other than that they are far inferior to
>.deb's).
>
>Debian's packages are installed with:
>make install PREFIX="/some/local/dir/usr"
>So, config files go in /some/local/dir/etc. (With LOCAL_RULES_DIR set to
>'$(PREFIX)../etc/mail')
>
>Cl
26 matches
Mail list logo
