Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Justin Mason wrote: On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:21:19PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast module? I can create it if you like. (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00 is there one?) A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support. guys -- bear in mind that IP:C:F is an optional module, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I know, but it should be there for the sake of completeness. I read that the country filters are off by default, how does one turn them on? -Dan --j. +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley ?crivait : | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) |> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be |> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have |> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the |> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them |> to update/patch/whatever. | | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated | and in the field long enough for some serious testing? I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under discussion. -- Mathieu Arnold -- "We need another cat. This one's retarded." -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM) Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org --- -- "Hey, call me anything you like. I'm Dan to my friends, gushi to my close friends, 'hey, you' to my girlfriend, 'mrrow?' to my cat, and 'why the hell is the router on fire?' to my job. -Dan Mahoney 12/2/02 Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 12:47:20 -0400 David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And, just as a note, the latest ExiScan is 27, for Exim 4.42. Is that in the ports tree yet? I know they've been under a freeze for a while now. Yep, that's the current port versions. -Pat
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
+-le 25/09/2004 13:21 -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin écrivait : | On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: | | Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast | module? I can create it if you like. | | (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00 | is there one?) I can add it, not a problem, I'll have a look at this on Monday. | A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be | useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support. SSL is the only thing you need to have to get compiled in, so I'll had some kind of WITH_SSL thing. Database support is enabled if you enable it in the config, and if you want to enable it, you're surely already have DBI and the appropriate DBD modules, and I'm not going to add cases for all DBD:: Modules we have in the tree. | -Dan | |> +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait : |> | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold |> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> | |> |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : |> |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update |> |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability |> |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by |> |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still |> |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) |> |> |> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will |> |> be the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to |> |> have SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). |> |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with |> |> the patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 |> |> for them to update/patch/whatever. |> | |> | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not |> | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? |> | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated |> | and in the field long enough for some serious testing? |> |> I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed |> for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under |> discussion. |> |> -- |> Mathieu Arnold |> | | -- | | "We need another cat. This one's retarded." | | -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM) | | Dan Mahoney | Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek | Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC | ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM | Site: http://www.gushi.org | --- -- Mathieu Arnold
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast module? I can create it if you like. (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00 is there one?) A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support. -Dan +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait : | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) |> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be |> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have |> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the |> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them |> to update/patch/whatever. | | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated | and in the field long enough for some serious testing? I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under discussion. -- Mathieu Arnold -- "We need another cat. This one's retarded." -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM) Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org ---
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
+-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait : | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) |> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be |> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have |> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the |> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them |> to update/patch/whatever. | | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated | and in the field long enough for some serious testing? I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under discussion. -- Mathieu Arnold
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Pat Lashley wrote: For example, it would break the Exim port which by default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) Sure about that? I'm running Exim with Exiscan version 22, built from the port, and it's working fine with SpamAssassin 3.0.
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : | SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update | to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability | in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by | default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still | build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them to update/patch/whatever. That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated and in the field long enough for some serious testing? -Pat
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 00:21:44 -0400 David Brodbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For example, it would break the Exim port which by default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) Sure about that? I'm running Exim with Exiscan version 22, built from the port, and it's working fine with SpamAssassin 3.0. Are you using SA via the spam ACL clauses; or do you have it set up as a filter? In the past, ExiScan has had to be updated to adapt to changes to the SpamAssasin output. The last couple of updates have supported both of the most recent 2.x SA versions; but I've seen nothing about 3.0 support. I'm not certain that it won't work; but I wouldn't expect it to. Even if it appears to work, I wouldn't trust it until there's been an announcement on the Exim lists. And, just as a note, the latest ExiScan is 27, for Exim 4.42. -Pat
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
--On Friday, September 24, 2004 04:37:05 -0400 "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've gotten a Makefile mostly tuned for sa3, based on the FreeBSD port makefile for 2.64. I've added most of the dependencies, but FreeBSD doesn't have ports for Net::SMTP or IP::Country::Fast, so those two features can't be auto- installed unless the ports maintainer comes up with them. Net::SMTP is part of the perl 5.8 port. SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) -Pat
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
At 04:37 AM 9.24.2004 -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: >I've gotten a Makefile mostly tuned for sa3, based on the FreeBSD port >makefile for 2.64. I've added most of the dependencies, but FreeBSD >doesn't have ports for Net::SMTP or IP::Country::Fast, so those two >features can't be auto-installed unless the ports maintainer comes up with >them. > >I'm also not *quite* sure of the syntax for requiring a specific *version* >of a perl module from within the ports tree. > >I've added an optional WITH_SSL=yes define that will auto-ssl-ify things. > >Finally, there's a few prompts that as-of-yet cannot be bypassed, I've >opened a bug on those. > >So, suffice it to say it should be a while before we see this in the ports >tree. I'm going to send my changes along to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see what >they think. > >-Dan > > >-- > >"Goodbye my peoples. I'll miss each one of you. Sniff-Sniff I now know >the true meaning of love. Thank you Sniff-Sniff. You are all in my >heart." > >-Chris D. > Dan: Yes, before asking my question, I did notice the ports were frozen & I also "played" with the 2.64 port without luck too. But, thought maybe someone else had some sort of time estimate for the new port. Guess we'll have to just wait patiently although that's not easy. Many thanks for the responses! Best regards, Jack L. Stone, Administrator Sage American http://www.sage-american.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
