On 17 Sep 2018, at 22:57, James Hsieh wrote:
So this is odd:
I finally started this without the daemonize option to see if it gave
me anything more enlightening and got:
Sep 17 22:44:15.326 [21704] error: config: no rules were found! Do you
need to run 'sa-update'?
config: no rules were fo
On 17 Sep 2018, at 22:03 (-0400), Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Interesting I think Bill added that code.
Nope. From svn:
3042 mmartinec 810883 die sprintf("child process [%s] exited or
timed out ".
3043 "without signaling production of a PID file:
%s",
3044
So this is odd:
I finally started this without the daemonize option to see if it gave me
anything more enlightening and got:
Sep 17 22:44:15.326 [21704] error: config: no rules were found! Do you need to
run 'sa-update'?
config: no rules were found! Do you need to run 'sa-update'?
Sure enough
Interesting I think Bill added that code.
On 9/17/2018 9:16 PM, James Hsieh wrote:
> This does help things to build. I can build successfully. I now have a
> problem where spamd seems to be jumping out of the startup wait loop.
>
> I keep hitting this code:
>
> die sprintf("child process [%
This does help things to build. I can build successfully. I now have a
problem where spamd seems to be jumping out of the startup wait loop.
I keep hitting this code:
die sprintf("child process [%s] exited or timed out ".
"without signaling production of a PID file: %s",
El El dom, sep. 16, 2018 a las 11:31 p. m., Reio Remma
escribió:
>
> Download link @WeTransfer:
>
> https://we.tl/t-CbvKhwJoCA
>
> spamassassin-3.4.2-0.el7.x86_64.rpm
>
> Will be deleted on 24 September, 2018.
>
> Good luck,
> Reio
Thnk
>
> --
rickygm
http://gnuforever.homelinux.com
This patch was added for windows. Does it help you? It switches to errno.h
--- getopt.c 2018-09-13 21:27:52.0 -0400
+++ ../../3.4/spamc/getopt.c 2018-09-17 07:12:38.758722882 -0400
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
-#include
+#include
#include "getopt.h"
#ifd
So this isn't a complaint. I think the SA team has done a great job getting
this release out and yes, it works fine for me under Linux.
However, any creative ways for getting around the fact that err.h is now part
of spamc/getopt.c? This breaks older OSes (which admittedly I probably
shouldn'
--On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:13 PM -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
You can install the srpm and then in
/usr/src/RedHat you get various files like tar files and patches with a
spec file that says how to build it.
That path would be if you were building as root, which is not recommended.
--On Monday, September 17, 2018 3:13 PM -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
You can install the srpm and then in
/usr/src/RedHat you get various files like tar files and patches with a
spec file that says how to build it.
That path would be if you were building as root, which is not recommended.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:22:48 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
[snip]
> Good to know. Did the Makefile.PL gracefully tell you that your
> Makemaker was too old?
It did indeed, which made the fix very simple. Thanks for your hard work!
Regards,
Dianne.
On 9/17/2018 3:05 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:22:32 -0400
> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>
>> I'd be pretty shocked if you have to do very much to that src rpm for
>> 3.4.1 to get 3.4.2 working.
> I ran into one gotcha on (ancient) Debian 5; the version of
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker w
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:22:32 -0400
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
> I'd be pretty shocked if you have to do very much to that src rpm for
> 3.4.1 to get 3.4.2 working.
I ran into one gotcha on (ancient) Debian 5; the version of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker was too old. Installing from CPAN did the trick. I'
Recommend you might take a look. You can install the srpm and then in
/usr/src/RedHat you get various files like tar files and patches with a
spec file that says how to build it. Some are complex, some are easy.
Then you rpmbuild to make an RPM that you can install.
If you can do a batch file,
> On Sep 17, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> I'd be pretty shocked if you have to do very much to that src rpm for
> 3.4.1 to get 3.4.2 working.
Possibly if I knew what I was doing with src rpms, that would be the case. ;-)
Hoping someone who knows a lot more than I do is alrea
I'd be pretty shocked if you have to do very much to that src rpm for
3.4.1 to get 3.4.2 working.
On 9/17/2018 1:19 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
> Is there anyone so kind as to perhaps make an RPM for CentOS 5? There are
> still more than a few dinosaurs running that OS that can't upgrade but would
>
Is there anyone so kind as to perhaps make an RPM for CentOS 5? There are
still more than a few dinosaurs running that OS that can't upgrade but would
love to have SA.
I could probably build it from the src rpm but I'm not an expert...
Kevin Fenzi has a repo with 3.4.1 for CentOS 5 and 6, but
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:04:00 +0100
RW wrote:
> If the normalized body were
> stored as single-line paragraphs separated by newlines (perhaps broken
> into large blocks), it would make make it possible to write more
> reliable body rules without changing the behaviour of existing rules.
I'll rephr
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:33:53 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2018, 6:29:33 PM GMT+2, RW
> wrote:
> >If that actually occurred in the body it would be normalized to
> >apache apache apache
> >
> >If you mean >apache
> >
> >apache
> >
> >apache>then
On Monday, September 17, 2018, 6:29:33 PM GMT+2, RW
wrote:
>If that actually occurred in the body it would be normalized to
>apache apache apache
>
>If you mean >apache
>
>apache
>
>apache>then my understanding is that a body rule would run independently
>oneach instance of 'apache',
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:47:20 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
> >On Monday, September 17, 2018, 5:34:48 PM GMT+2, Antony Stone
> > wrote: Give us a bit
> >more of a clue what you are trying / hoping to do?
> >In what way do you want to identify different paragraphs in an
> >email, and how s
>On Monday, September 17, 2018, 5:34:48 PM GMT+2, Antony Stone
> wrote:
>Give us a bit more of a clue what you are trying / hoping to do?
>In what way do you want to identify different paragraphs in an email, and how
>should the rules be applied differently?
Sure, thanks Antony...
I want i to
On Monday 17 September 2018 at 17:29:48, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Hi!
> is there any trick to make a rule work along different body paragraphs?? or
> maybe the only way is via plugins...
Give us a bit more of a clue what you are trying / hoping to do?
In what way do you want to identify differ
Hi!
is there any trick to make a rule work along different body paragraphs?? or
maybe the only way is via plugins...
Regards,
-PedroD
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:46:19 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
> To my remember Dianne Skoll was in his list...
Hello...
> Does anyone know whether she is still maintaining MIME::Tools ?
Yep, I am.
Regards,
Dianne.
Thanks Kevin, i already saw that but i was wondering whether she is active or
not at that regard...
On Monday, September 17, 2018, 12:41:08 PM GMT+2, Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
Yes, DFS is still the maintainer. You can see her listed at
https://metacpan.org/pod/MIME::Tools
Regards,
KAM
Yes, DFS is still the maintainer. You can see her listed at
https://metacpan.org/pod/MIME::Tools
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP Fundraising, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:4
To my remember Dianne Skoll was in his list...
Does anyone know whether she is still maintaining MIME::Tools ?
Thanks,
-PedroD
28 matches
Mail list logo
