-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Rudd writes:
> On Sep 8, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> > On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
> >>
> >> I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to
On 7 Sep 2005 at 18:46, Loren Wilton wrote:
> > has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet? I can't find it. I'd like
> > to get this worked out on the BZ so we can track it as an rc3 issue
> > (or not).
>
> I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
> try to track
On Sep 8, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to
have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
po
On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
>
> I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
> try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
> posting. Especially since I don't remember who
> has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet? I can't find it. I'd like
> to get this worked out on the BZ so we can track it as an rc3 issue
> (or not).
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the origina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> It isn't fixed in rc2.
>
> You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
> had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
> two between release cutoff and the release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
> It isn't fixed in rc2.
>
> You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
> had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
> two between release cutoff and the release
> The problem came up in another thread, and the submitter was advised to
> take it to the MIMEDefang list. The lead MD developer looked at it,
> found that SA was messing around with SIGCHLD, and came up with a
> workaround (which will be included in the next version of MD), but seems
> to consid
It isn't fixed in rc2.
You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
two between release cutoff and the release showing up, since it needs to be
tested before the announcement.)
Furthermore
From: "Kelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
There was no subsequent discussion. I'm not sure there was even a
single reply.
The problem came up in another th
jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
There was no subsequent discussion. I'm not sure there was even a
single reply.
The problem came up in another thread, and the submitter was advised to
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>
> 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
I don't remember seeing any subsequent messages on the subject. And,
over on the mimedefang list the developer worked out a work-around in
mimedefang, but it still sounded like it was an SA problem.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 1:13 AM, jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a
Duncan Findlay schrieb:
>> Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
>
> Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
> about?
The one reported by him in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I think.
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -070
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
