On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:58:18PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> > We have it working here with dspam-3.10.2 and postgresql-9.2.4.
>>
>> Interesting - what OS are you running? I wonder
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:58:18PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > We have it working here with dspam-3.10.2 and postgresql-9.2.4.
>
> Interesting - what OS are you running? I wonder if it may be because I
> don't have dspam linked against the
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> We have it working here with dspam-3.10.2 and postgresql-9.2.4.
Interesting - what OS are you running? I wonder if it may be because I
don't have dspam linked against the same version of PostgreSQL. I have
two systems, one a CentOS 6 system
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:28:57AM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Chris Moules wrote:
> > NOTE: the patch that I sent was only for the single (repeated) error
> > that I was receiving. This was while hitting the DB via dspam_train.
> >
> > I have been evaluating all th
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 13-06-13 20:28, David Rees wrote:
>> Is training actually working for you on PostgreSQL? It does not appear
>> to be working for me...
>>
>> See: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30708939
>>
>> Haven't had time to dig
On 13-06-13 20:28, David Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Chris Moules wrote:
>> NOTE: the patch that I sent was only for the single (repeated) error
>> that I was receiving. This was while hitting the DB via dspam_train.
>>
>> I have been evaluating all the storage backends and foun
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Chris Moules wrote:
> NOTE: the patch that I sent was only for the single (repeated) error
> that I was receiving. This was while hitting the DB via dspam_train.
>
> I have been evaluating all the storage backends and found Hash to be the
> fastest, but seems buggy
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> This is already fixed some time ago, I think it was this commit [1].
> What version of dspam are you running, and which version of postgresql
> server?
I currently see this on dspam 3.10.2 and PostgreSQL 9.2.4 - both built
from source. I turn
