At 15:11 19-03-10, Chris Richman wrote:
If anyone knows of a reliable way to identify mailing list addresses,
I'd love to know so we could block mail to them. Currently, we just do
it when it's reported to us. I suppose one approach might be to block
"list.*" domains or email addresses in the for
Hi,
> Lots of ham may contain a URI, but how much ham contains ONLY a URI?
>
> Rough outline of rule, untested.
>
> rawbody __BODY_ONLY_URI
> /^[^a-z]{0,10}(http:\/\/|www\.)(\w+\.)+(com|net|org|biz|cn|ru)\/?[^
> ]{0,20}[a-z]{0,10}$/msi
>
> Combine that with 'frequent abusers' like Yahoo, and
Hi,
> perl-Mail-spamassassin* of another. Running “rpm –e spam*” I get the
> following error:
That's not the proper way to remove an RPM. Try this:
# rpm -qva | grep spamassassin
It will display a list of the spamassassin packages installed and you
can pick from that list. You may also be able
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/34108.html
Please see my blog post here for official, tested RPM packages for Fedora
and RHEL5.
I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file contained
within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on Fedora
or Red Hat Enterp
Have tried upgrading Spamassassin 3.2.5 to 3.3.1 and the result was a disaster.
Currently have the spamassin* of one version and perl-Mail-spamassassin* of
another. Running "rpm -e spam*" I get the following error:
error: package spamassassin-3.2.5-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
error: package
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Slist wrote:
Hi,
I followed the instruction in the download page to built my own rpm. All
went well. But when I tried to start it, it gave me this error
Starting spamd: child process [27459] exited or timed out without signaling
production of a PID file: exit 255 at /usr/b
Hi,
I followed the instruction in the download page to built my own rpm. All
went well. But when I tried to start it, it gave me this error
Starting spamd: child process [27459] exited or timed out without signaling
production of a PID file: exit 255 at /usr/bin/spamd line 2588.
My machine is a
On 21/03/2010 3:04 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 3/20/10 9:53 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>>
>> To my taste, ASF mirrors should not be allowed to hijack nonexistent
>> URLs within a mirror directory. Such practice should cause an immediate
>> ban/drop of such site from a list of official mirrors.
On 3/20/10 9:53 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
To my taste, ASF mirrors should not be allowed to hijack nonexistent
URLs within a mirror directory. Such practice should cause an immediate
ban/drop of such site from a list of official mirrors.
like this? doesn't give me a 404. gives me their Tak
