[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an older episode (Thursday 14 April 2005 00:54), Theo Van Dinter wrote:
In this case, however, it's not clear if he's running something like a
Fedora RPM version of SpamAssassin where he could just go ahead and update
at will, or if it's something like Barracuda/etc, wh
In an older episode (Thursday 14 April 2005 00:54), Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> In this case, however, it's not clear if he's running something like a
> Fedora RPM version of SpamAssassin where he could just go ahead and update
> at will, or if it's something like Barracuda/etc, where you really can'
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:37:19PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Theo, from reading the bugzilla report the fix in question isn't even
> in a released version of SA (yet) and only in SVN head.. Dan said it was
> fixed in head on /2005-01-28, and there have been no releases since /
> 2004-12-16 (3.0
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:16AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>how would you apply the (apparently existing) fix to an existing SA 3.*
>>installation where SA comes from a distributor? can the affected perl module
>>be installed via a CPAN shell for example?
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:08:16AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> how would you apply the (apparently existing) fix to an existing SA 3.*
> installation where SA comes from a distributor? can the affected perl module
> be installed via a CPAN shell for example?
If you're running a version of
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4111#c12
how would you apply the (apparently existing) fix to an existing SA 3.*
installation where SA comes from a distributor? can the affected perl module
be installed via a CPAN shell for example?
