[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [Slaughtered Subject line ALERT: Not sure what this belongs under, > it showed up on my system sort of buggered up] >
[deleted] > Or as someone else posted a day or two ago, you could start spamd like > > spamd -D [but not -d] > file 2>&1 & > Yes, but not -d. And that's a lot of what this thread evolved into, the not -d part, and what to do about it. After much, probably annoying (on my part) discussion, Craig (very patiently) finally brought me around to seeing that spamd should not just loose SA's warning calls, but rather, print them to syslog. Craig also offered that SA could hook into spamd's debug message writing routine. I think I've got the gist about right. If not, it's, if you can bare it, all in the list. Bryan -- I struggle in vain. My foot slips. My life is still a poet's existence. What could be more unhappy? - (Soren Kierkegaard - Either/Or) 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/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
