on 2/18/02 11:23 AM, Daniel Rogers at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 11:29:53AM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
>> I'll happily accept patches. In the meantime, killing spamd won't cause
>> any loss of mail, only loss of identification of spam messages for that
>> fraction of a se
I'll happily accept patches. In the meantime, killing spamd won't cause
any loss of mail, only loss of identification of spam messages for that
fraction of a second when it's not listening, or for those messages
already in process. spamc will just dump the unprocessed message back
out if process
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Tom Lipkis wrote:
> Modifying the site-wide config requires killing and restarting spamd,
> which risks missing some mail or killing a running scan. It would be
> handy if sending SIGHUP to the parent spamd process would cause it to
> reload the rules cleanly. It should lea
