Craig R Hughes wrote: > Yes -- SA itself does not communicate with syslog -- which is probably > the Right > Thing.
I see - because spamd is the controlling program (? and in general is always (usually anyway) a 'slave' to some client program), or some other reason?. > spamd is the thing which is detaching itself from the terminal and > therefore losing SA debug messages; But these messages are dropped when SA is run from .procmailrc aren't they? That is, aren't SA's "warning" messsage only going to the terminal anyway, in which case, they would make sense only when SA is run interactively. So it sounds like (well, like one of those "esoteric" design questions, I happen to enjoy), if SA does not normally write to a disk file log, there's no reason it should in the case of running as a spamd client - but if one wants these messages, can't STDERR be redirected (via perhaps a command line switch or to the hook you mentioned) to a disk file (seems like some one mentioned this, but I can't find the message now)? Bryan -- Labor exploitation hurts us all - Sign the petition: http://www.zazona.com/h1bpetition/P/facts.html Proud ugly web site owner: http://www.wecs.com http://www.wecs.com/bio_ailinks.htm; http://www.wecs.com/spam.htm http://www.wecs.com/resume.htm _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
