Putting the questions/wants 1st, for those wanting the bottom line.
For backstory/why, see further on.
2 things:
1) Is it too much effort to only use the major/minor for sa-files?
i.e. instead of numbering: "3.002000/ 3.004000/ 3.004004/" using
"3.002/ 3.004/" ...? Where the patch leve
On 2020/10/25 13:00, Bill Cole wrote:
A common source of such problems is widespread adoption of the
local::lib module which creates a per-user Perl library tree for each
user of CPAN, even root. If that's not disabled, it can result in
independent module trees with different versions of the sa
On 2020/10/18 09:22, L A Walsh wrote:
On 2020/10/17 15:58, RW wrote:
Probably a networking problem at the time sa-update ran.
status: 1792 decodes to a curl error code of 7 "Failed to connect to
host".
I suspect it's a bug that 1792 wasn't decoded.
Reinstalled from
On 2020/10/17 15:58, RW wrote:
Probably a networking problem at the time sa-update ran.
status: 1792 decodes to a curl error code of 7 "Failed to connect to
host".
I suspect it's a bug that 1792 wasn't decoded.
Dug down a bit...seems it has something to do with curl expecting
a proxy wh
Update available for channel updates.spamassassin.org: -1 -> 895075
http: (curl) GET http://sa-update.verein-clean.net/895075.tar.gz,
FAILED, status: 1792
http: (curl) GET http://sa-update.spamassassin.org/895075.tar.gz,
FAILED, status: 1792
http: (curl) GET http://www.sa-update.pccc.com/895075.
Stop thinking that silently rejecting an email isn't the same
as dropping.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
STOP calling rejection a dropping.
Rejecting is NOT dropping.
They are two different things.
If you try to hand me an envelope, and I will refuse to take it, It is NOT
the same as if I took
Alan Hodgson wrote:
Rejecting the message during receipt causes the sending server to
generate a bounce. If it's at all functional.
That used to happen on poorly implemented mailing
lists -- a delivery error would be bounced back to the
email list as a reply that would get se
To my way of thinking, dropping someone else's email,
telling the sender the email is being rejected for having
spam-like characteristics and telling the recipient nothing
seems like it might have legal liability for the for the
user potentially missing vital email.
It also would seem to violate
These headers (not these values) are in most or all of my emails.
In one email on the net they were adjacent to SA's headers (but they
aren't in my emails). I was wondering if anyone knew what
product might be inserting these headers:
X-CSC: 0
X-CHA: v=1.1 cv=6jkfEoj2u7Yj9etNrzOg8LH7MfGxzbc6X
I have:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -5.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 10.0
in my user_prefs.
When I get a message though, I see autolearn being set to 'no':
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=18.7 required=4.8 tests=BAYES_99,BAYES_999,
FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_
I remember an email some time ago about an increase in non-ham messages
getting through when 3.0 first came out.
I recently upgraded my distro which included an upgrade to
SA-3.0.2.
I moved my old database, and imported the information using
sa-learn --import;
I then re-ran sa-learn on about 200
11 matches
Mail list logo
