Yes, that does look like it. If that hasn't made it into the standard
Fedora repo by the time of my next scheduled update I'll pull it it from
Testing - I've got enough other stuff I need to deal with right now
without adding in a 3.3.2->3.4.0 conversion.
Final follow-up
===
Yesterday
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 02:41 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> If that is the culprit, the easiest, fastest and most painless way of
> getting a fully functional SA back, is to revert the recent Perl
> Net::DNS upgrade.
>
Yes, I can now confirm that the problem was the recent upgrade of
Net::DNS
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 09:13 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 03:01 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096405
> >
> > Comment 5 also mentions an issue with Perl Net::DNS 0.75, which is the
> > exact version the package upgrade
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 03:01 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> That error message rings a bell. Will (aragonx?) posted that line very
> recently, and updated the thread himself just today, pointing to a RH /
> Fedora 20 bugzilla report for its SA 3.3.2 package, related to Perl
> Net::DNS 0.76 (on
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:20 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:21 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > For bonus-points, watch the logs for spamd claiming to be ready.
>
> Here you go:
> Jun 1 01:07:41 zappa spamd[15831]: plugin: eval failed: Insecure
> dependency in conn
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:21 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I haven't really used systemd yet, but one fundamental design decision
> is, that systemd itself takes care about sockets and stuff, returning
> early and asynchronously lets the service complete starting up in the
> background.
>
Th
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 23:07 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 20:15 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > The testsa script looks like this:
> >
> > > state=$(spamdstatus)
> > > if [ "$state" == 'spamd is stopped' ]
> > > then
> > > sudo systemctl start spamassassin.servic
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 20:15 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> $ which -a spamc
>
'locate spamc' turned up a copy of spamc 3.2.4 in /usr/local/bin dated
2008. I can't remember how it might have got there since I've only ever
installed SA from the Fedora repo. Anyway, that is gone now and both
spa
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 17:39 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 02:48 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > A quick googlin' brings up spamassassin 3.3.2-18.fc20 for Fedora 20, in
> > a single package shipping both spamc and spamd in /usr/bin.
>
> After deleting and reinstalling
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 02:48 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:34 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > LATER: This morning I reran some failing examples after rebooting the
> > test machine. No change, so I
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:34 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> LATER: This morning I reran some failing examples after rebooting the
> test machine. No change, so I tried a few stripped-down runs, i.e. I
> started spamd via a test script
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > I've looked down the list a couple of times and didn't see anything I
> > thought would affect it due to
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> I've looked down the list a couple of times and didn't see anything I
> thought would affect it due to a possibly bad assumption that this sort
> of error would be insulated
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> I'll post the complete list either later today or on Tuesday (this is
> the start of the second May Bank Holiday weekend).
>
Here you go. This is the yum upgrade summary:
Packages Installed:
kernel-PAE-3.14.4-200.fc20.i686
Gr
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > > > > The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
> > >
> > > Is that everything that was upgraded,
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > > The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
> >
> > Is that everything that was upgraded, or just the Perl bits?
>
> Just the Perl bits.
Figured as much. That ra
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> > On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > > 2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
> > > =
> > > This morn
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 18:37 -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
> Two quick questions: Does it happen to *every* message passed to spamc, and
> does restarting spamd solve it?
>
It seems to. At least its consistently done that to a semi-random
selection of my example spam collection over several tests. Ea
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > 2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
> > =
> > This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
> > amended
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
> > the past and have never seen the second before.
> >
> > 1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
> > =
> install and
--As of May 23, 2014 11:23:44 PM +0100, Martin Gregorie is alleged to have
said:
This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
amended a rule to recognise a new spam variant. The test box is running
a fully patched (as of last Friday) copy of Fedora 20. Then I did my
no
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
I was doing some cleanup on my private rule collection, which meant
running SA
22 matches
Mail list logo