Re: rpm of centos
El sáb., 11 ene. 2020 a las 12:15, John Hardin () escribió: > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, Amir Caspi wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Rick Gutierrez wrote: > >> > >> Hi everyone, someone from the list who can share the rpm of the > >> latest version of spamassassin for centos 7 and 6 of x64, I want to > >> update to the latest version and I can't find the rpm. > > > > SA 3.4.2 is available for Fedora, and you can build it from the SRPM pretty > > easily for RHEL/CentOS 7 or 6 with no modifications. > > I found one very minor modification was needed: the spec file requires > "perl-interpreter" and that doesn't seem to see the "perl" package > installed under Centos 7. I unpacked the SRPM, changed that dependency, > installed some new dependencies (perl-Test-Simple and some others that > weren't explicit in the earlier SRPMs) and it built without further > problems. > > I've installed it on my hosted server and it appears to be working so far. > > The RPM is available here, assuming you trust me: > >http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/centos7/ > I was having that same problem, because fedora src rpm is newer than centos 7, but thanks for sharing the rpm. -- rickygm http://gnuforever.homelinux.com
Re: rpm of centos
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, Amir Caspi wrote: On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Rick Gutierrez wrote: Hi everyone, someone from the list who can share the rpm of the latest version of spamassassin for centos 7 and 6 of x64, I want to update to the latest version and I can't find the rpm. SA 3.4.2 is available for Fedora, and you can build it from the SRPM pretty easily for RHEL/CentOS 7 or 6 with no modifications. I found one very minor modification was needed: the spec file requires "perl-interpreter" and that doesn't seem to see the "perl" package installed under Centos 7. I unpacked the SRPM, changed that dependency, installed some new dependencies (perl-Test-Simple and some others that weren't explicit in the earlier SRPMs) and it built without further problems. I've installed it on my hosted server and it appears to be working so far. The RPM is available here, assuming you trust me: http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam/centos7/ -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- People that keep dreaming about the wasteland, labyrinths and quick cash, die in amusing ways. -- Root the Dragon --- 6 days until Benjamin Franklin's 314th Birthday
Re: Two types of new spam
> On Jan 4, 2020, at 11:57 AM, Bill Cole > wrote: > > On 3 Jan 2020, at 17:45, Philip Prindeville wrote: > [...] > >> One other question that occurs to me: why would we even need > http-equiv=“Content-Type” …> if we already have a Content-Type: header? > > There should be no need. > > With that said, it could be *helpful* if a MUA were to save out the text/html > part as a standalone file without including any definitive indication of the > file being HTML. Well, it turns out that a lot of MUA’s (including Apple’s Mail.app) generates this. > >> Isn’t that the sign of a broken MUA doing the composition? > > Not broken (except for the fact of generating HTML for email at all, a > disease analogous to HSV-1.) It is valid HTML and can be useful in rare > circumstances. > >> Is that on its own Spamsign (with all respect to Frank Herbert)? > > Do you consider all mail from Facebook to be spam? Is that a trick question? -Philip
