Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On 04.11.2009 / 09:20:16 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> polloxx wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is the spamassassin development dead?
>>> On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been re
On 04.11.2009 / 09:20:16 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> polloxx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is the spamassassin development dead?
> > On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
> >
>
> Not quite. If you look at svn, you&#
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Bowie Bailey wrote:
The SA core rules are not updated very often. For the most part, they
just work. If you are not already doing so, you may want to consider
Justin's Sought ruleset. It is dynamically generated and updated every
4 hours or so.
http://wiki.apache.org/spama
Kent Borg wrote:
> I admit I have been ignoring Spamassassin because it seems to work. I
> have been pleased that Spamassassin has been regularly flagging over 94%
> of my spam. And this list seems active (if mostly ignored by me).
>
> But this e-mail caught my eye. Indeed, the version on spamas
I admit I have been ignoring Spamassassin because it seems to work. I
have been pleased that Spamassassin has been regularly flagging over 94%
of my spam. And this list seems active (if mostly ignored by me).
But this e-mail caught my eye. Indeed, the version on spamassassin.org
is old and the
On ons 04 nov 2009 15:10:45 CET, polloxx wrote
Is the spamassassin development dead?
On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
join the dev maillist and ask the same question there, but as i see
it, it being working on make sa 3.3.x stable for so long tim
polloxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the spamassassin development dead?
> On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
>
Not quite. If you look at svn, you'll see this:
spamassassin_20091103151200.tar.gz03-Nov-2009 15:122.1M
Hi,
Is the spamassassin development dead?
On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
