Re: Spamassassin 3.0 with mimedefang 2.37

2004-09-29 Thread Alex S Moore 
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 16:52 -0500, Larry Starr wrote:
 I am working to upgrade spamassassin, from 2.60 to 3.0, on my RedHat 8 
 Mailserver.
 
 I'm currently running mimedefang 2.37.   I have found no references to a 
 required version of Mimedefang in the docs, and would like to avoid changing 
 the entire world at once.
 
 Does anyone know of any problems running SA 3.0 from MD 2.37?

According to the ChangeLog, the first MD release to support the SA 3.0
API was 2.42.

Alex

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 with mimedefang 2.37

2004-09-29 Thread Kelson 
Larry Starr wrote:
I'm currently running mimedefang 2.37.  I have found no references to a 
required version of Mimedefang in the docs, and would like to avoid changing 
the entire world at once.
The UPGRADE file goes into this to some extent.  It doesn't mention 
MIMEDefang by name, but the second paragraph points out that SA's API 
has changed, and that if you use a third-party program to call it, 
you'll need to upgrade to a version that supports the new API.

(Developers: It might be worth mentioning the minimum 3.0-compatible 
versions for MD, Amavis, and other popular things-that-call-SA.)

Does anyone know of any problems running SA 3.0 from MD 2.37?
Support for SA 3.0 was added in MD 2.42, so you'll need to upgrade at 
least to that version (though of course upgrading to the latest and 
greatest is recommended!)

--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications www.speed.net

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 with mimedefang 2.37

2004-09-29 Thread Michael Parker 
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:07:08PM -0700, Kelson wrote:
 
 (Developers: It might be worth mentioning the minimum 3.0-compatible 
 versions for MD, Amavis, and other popular things-that-call-SA.)
 

Why?

How are developers supposed to know what popular versions of
software support/use SpamAssassin and what the minimum supported
version is?  Besides, who gets to decide what the definition of
popular is?

Michael

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 with mimedefang 2.37

2004-09-29 Thread Justin Mason 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


Michael Parker writes:
 On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:07:08PM -0700, Kelson wrote:
  (Developers: It might be worth mentioning the minimum 3.0-compatible 
  versions for MD, Amavis, and other popular things-that-call-SA.)
 
 Why?
 
 How are developers supposed to know what popular versions of
 software support/use SpamAssassin and what the minimum supported
 version is?  Besides, who gets to decide what the definition of
 popular is?

Well, it would be *nice*.   I think it's reasonable to assume
that MIMEDefang and amavisd certainly need this, given the very
large amount of bug reports we've been getting.

- --j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFBWzV4QTcbUG5Y7woRAupoAKClDNnG16bJcR0LCHFbvK+ZHZSiqACgnErn
T9T4WGP6qEGN+g+N4kQ44lA=
=JoV5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 with mimedefang 2.37

2004-09-29 Thread Theo Van Dinter 
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:21:44PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
 Well, it would be *nice*.   I think it's reasonable to assume
 that MIMEDefang and amavisd certainly need this, given the very
 large amount of bug reports we've been getting.

So long as our notes state that we don't actively follow the development of
the other software, so they should be consulted, blah blah blah.  But it's
been reported that versions X, Y, and Z should work ...

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
The autodecrement is not magical.
  -- Larry Wall in the perl man page


pgpcORrg2LCzX.pgp
Description: PGP signature