On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
I do not have a bug number. It's a problem I mentioned on the l
On Monday 29 August 2005 11:57 pm, John Rudd wrote:
> Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you really need to quote the entire message?
--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the
world. it's the only thing that ever has.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
--
Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
*** THIS IS A RELEASE CANDIDATE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL 3.1.0 RELEASE ***
SpamAssassin 3.1.0-rc2 is released! SpamAssassin 3.1.0 is a major
update. SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced statis
*** THIS IS A RELEASE CANDIDATE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL 3.1.0 RELEASE ***
SpamAssassin 3.1.0-rc2 is released! SpamAssassin 3.1.0 is a major
update. SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced statistical
and heuristic tests to identify spam (also known as unsolicited bulk
email).
This is a re
Chris wrote:
> On Thursday 25 August 2005 10:11 am, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>Chris wrote:
>>
>>>When and what would SA place on the above tag?
>>
>>That shouldn't end up in your email. That's an internal pseudo-header. SA
>>places the list of all trusted mail relays into it. That list is based on
>
At 05:59 PM 8/27/2005, email builder wrote:
We just migrated to Tinydns from BIND and are looking at our cache size
(OK, so I am really talking about dnscache, not tinydns itself). Looking at
our cache logs from the last 12 hours (2am Friday night to 2pm Saturday
afternoon), I see our "cache m
I'm attaching the original spam message as is (in Outlook .msg format).
You'll be able to see my SA full report in the headers.
I don't think it would matter much because in my posting here I put
the original HTML HREF tag that includes the URI that should be
caught.
On 8/29/05, Craig McLean <[EMA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
| Craig McLean wrote:
|
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|> 3.1.0-rc1 nailed it to the wall.
|>
|> Craig.
| <...>
|> domain
|> | 4.5 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL
|> bloc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Note: CC: changed to users@spamassassin.apache.org -
@incubator.apache.org address is deprecated).
Sander Holthaus - Orange XL wrote:
[snip]
| But couldn't some 'simple' rules fix this? One metafilter that looks for
| valid links (images, href's, e
10 matches
Mail list logo
