> On Nov 16, 2021, at 8:03 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 01:08:16PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>> Or http.sh points to an NS that's offline...
>
> Your resolver shoukd time out _way_ sooner than some minutes.
>
>> Can the async lookup be back-ported?
>
> No, and
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 01:08:16PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
> Or http.sh points to an NS that's offline...
Your resolver shoukd time out _way_ sooner than some minutes.
> Can the async lookup be back-ported?
No, and there will be no new 3.4 releases.
> On Nov 16, 2021, at 3:30 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 17:12 -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip Prindeville writes:
>>>
Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
>
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 11:12 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 04:25:55PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
What would be helpful here would b
Replies... some duplication of conversation on "mimedefang".
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 10:34 PM, Bill Cole
> wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-15 at 18:08:20 UTC-0500 (Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:08:20 -0700)
> Philip Prindeville
> is rumored to have said:
>
>>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t -D rules <
netdev.eml" and saw:
...
Nov 12 11:45:38.048 [36367] dbg: rules:
For that matter how many know about 'apropos'? And, even if they do,
they may not discover 'locate' because 'apropos search' doesn't find
either 'updatedb' or 'locate'. You have to enter 'apropos find' to
discover that 'locate' exists, and even then you could get side tracked
into trying to use
On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 08:33 -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
>
> Worth noting: locate & updatedb aren't always installed.
>
Fair comment: they're a standard part of Fedora. IIRC they are also part
of the RaspberryPi OS distro, so are likely to be included in Debian and
most of its clones.
But: how many "
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 08:33:56AM -0500, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 2021-11-16 at 05:30:25 UTC-0500 (Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:30:25 +)
> Martin Gregorie
> is rumored to have said:
>
> > Of course, other Linux distros may put it somewhere else, so use
> > 'locate' and, if it doesn't find 'txrep', run '
On 2021-11-16 at 05:30:25 UTC-0500 (Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:30:25 +)
Martin Gregorie
is rumored to have said:
> Of course, other Linux distros may put it somewhere else, so use
> 'locate' and, if it doesn't find 'txrep', run 'sudo updatedb' and try
> again.
>
> Not trying to teach you to suck egg
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 17:12 -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philip Prindeville writes:
> >
> > > Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
> > >
> > > Why can't I even find the rule?
> >
try "locate txrep"
O
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 04:25:55PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> >>
> >> What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
> >> evaluation. Normally
On 2021-11-15 at 18:08:20 UTC-0500 (Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:08:20 -0700)
Philip Prindeville
is rumored to have said:
On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t
-D rules < net
Philip Prindeville writes:
>> That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
>> logs, on certain messages. I ended up nuking and rebuilding my TXREP
>> database and then things were ok.
>>
>> That doesn't explain why we can't find the rule, which is a good
>> question.
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>
> Philip Prindeville writes:
>
>> Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
>>
>> Why can't I even find the rule?
>
> That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
> logs, on certain messages. I en
Philip Prindeville writes:
> Ah, the rule _eval_tests_type11_pri0_set1() took 4:20.
>
> Why can't I even find the rule?
That looks very familiar. I was having timeouts, and saw that in the
logs, on certain messages. I ended up nuking and rebuilding my TXREP
database and then things were ok.
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:35 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
>> evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
>> would be useful. Perhaps I
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>
>> I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t -D
>> rules < netdev.eml" and saw:
>>
>> ...
>> Nov 12 11:45:38.048 [36367] dbg: rules: ran eval rule __ANY_TEXT_ATT
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, Loren Wilton wrote:
What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
would be useful. Perhaps I can code up something to capture that and log it
on a timeout...
Actually what sou
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, Henrik K wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
would be useful. Perhaps I can code up something to ca
What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
would be useful. Perhaps I can code up something to capture that and log
it on a timeout...
Actually what sounds like it would be useful would be knowin
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 07:49:00PM -0800, John Hardin wrote:
>
> What would be helpful here would be logging of when a rule *starts*
> evaluation. Normally that would be painful, but for tracking a runaway it
> would be useful. Perhaps I can code up something to capture that and log it
> on a time
On Fri, 12 Nov 2021, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t -D rules <
netdev.eml" and saw:
...
Nov 12 11:45:38.048 [36367] dbg: rules: ran eval rule __ANY_TEXT_ATTACH_DOC
==> got hit (1)
...
Nov 12 11:45:38.063 [36367] dbg: rules: r
Hi,
I got an email from net...@vger.kernel.org that was a lengthy (422K) regression
test report from a patch someone had submitted.
I got the message, saved it to a flat file, and ran "spamassassin -t -D rules <
netdev.eml" and saw:
...
Nov 12 11:45:38.048 [36367] dbg: rules: ran eval rule __A
24 matches
Mail list logo
