>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:58:43 -0500, Dallas L. Engelken
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John, if you need expiry right now, you can use my patch on
> bug 3802
> > if you want. It will basically do what Michael is talking about
> > except for purging count=1 entries.
> >
> > http://bugzil
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:58:43 -0500, Dallas L. Engelken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> John, if you need expiry right now, you can use my patch on bug 3802 if
> you want. It will basically do what Michael is talking about except for
> purging count=1 entries.
>
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/sh
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:04:49 -0500, Michael Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How odd, I was just writing a blurb about this in my ApacheCon
> presentation. In the future, AWL will have some sort of expiration,
> in the mean time, with SQL, I've had great success with a lastupdate
> of type TIME
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:31:28PM -0400, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> > Is there any accepted method for expiring AWL entries? I'm
> currently
> > using the SQL implementation of AWL.
> >
> > If there was no accepted method, my plan was to add a
>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:31:28PM -0400, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> Is there any accepted method for expiring AWL entries? I'm currently
> using the SQL implementation of AWL.
>
> If there was no accepted method, my plan was to add a TIMESTAMP field
> to the database an
Is there any accepted method for expiring AWL entries? I'm currently
using the SQL implementation of AWL.
If there was no accepted method, my plan was to add a TIMESTAMP field
to the database and expire old records...
Thanks!
--
Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
