Please reply only to the list. There is no need to CC me since I get the post from the SA list.
My point, if not particularly well elucidated, is that individual problems with MTA implementations are the realm of the particular MTA author/s. Myself and many, many others have no issues with ALL_TRUSTED. This issue seems to be one that's limited to Amavis, a server that is known to mangle headers. As to 'losing the thread', that's hardly surprising with the number of mails on the subject of late; personally, when I see Amavis mentioned I stop reading at that point. Just my 2 pence worth. Nigel. On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:46:31 -0700, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Nigel Frankcom wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:18:18 -0700, Jo Rhett >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>>> And as I've stated several times before, spamassassin *DOES* run. >>>>> Always. It's just whether or not it's doing anything useful. When it >>>>> can't talk to the sockets, it's dead in the water. >>> Frank Bures wrote: >>>> Interesting. Never came across that one. In my case if the socket is >>>> busy, >>>> spamd dies upon start. How do you restart the spamassassin. I use >>>> "service". >>> Amavis uses SA in object mode. This problem is related to bugs in >>> amavis startup, shutdown routines. >>> >>> NOTE: I'm not trying to report a bug in SA. It was a comment that >>> inline configuration reloading on SA's part would make it more seamless. >>> (and in this case I could avoid bugs with the package I use that calls it) >> >> >> Damn, I thought I'd subscribed to the SpamAssassin list not the Amavis >> one. Maybe I should subscribe to the Amavis list to read about SA. >> >> When last I looked SA was a stand alone; implementation with a mail >> server was down to the individual. maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the >> 1st time. > >This topic has wandered so far it's no longer clear to me that people >have any clue what the original discussion was (even though its in the >subject line)
