RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-19 Thread si
Re- hijack - sorry - it was 1:20am when I sent this ... we all make mistakes :) RE- 'digging' ... I have, but SA seems to have come along a fair bit since SA2.5 days, hence the word 'easiest'. Maybe 'best' would have been a better choice of word. Re- risk. Thing with risk is that 'mileage varie

non-toaster SpamAssassin Server version 3.3.1 with qmail-toaster ???

2010-08-19 Thread Suhag Desai
I have removed spamassassin-toaster-3.2.5 as it is old version. And installed SpamAssassin Server version 3.3.1. Now my mail scanning is stop after upgrade the same. I have rebuild the qmail-toaster after doing the same but still it is not working. Is there any rule that non-toaster package cannot

Re: two SA folders and sa-updates

2010-08-19 Thread C. Bensend
> better - *don't even think of using them* - they are not being updated > and never will. > > Anything worthy has already been migrated to SA mainstream and the few > SARE survivors are also SA commiters so they'll commit to SA instead of > SARE. > > Anybody hammering the rulesemporium with lwp/w

Re: two SA folders and sa-updates

2010-08-19 Thread Daniel McDonald
On 8/19/10 7:49 AM, "C. Bensend" wrote: > >> better - *don't even think of using them* - they are not being updated >> and never will. >> >> Anything worthy has already been migrated to SA mainstream and the few >> SARE survivors are also SA commiters so they'll commit to SA instead of >> SARE.

Re: two SA folders and sa-updates

2010-08-19 Thread C. Bensend
> Then you haven't been getting the regular updates. If you don't have > updates.spamassassin.org in your --channelfile, it won't check it... No, I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation. At the very top of the file (they had scrolled out of my term), I have: updates.spamassassin.org so

Re: two SA folders and sa-updates

2010-08-19 Thread Bowie Bailey
C. Bensend wrote: Then you haven't been getting the regular updates. If you don't have updates.spamassassin.org in your --channelfile, it won't check it... No, I stand corrected, sorry for the misinformation. At the very top of the file (they had scrolled out of my term), I have: update

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-19 Thread Karsten Bräckelmann
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 09:19 +0100, s...@yacc.co.uk wrote: > RE- 'digging' ... I have, but SA seems to have come along a fair bit > since SA2.5 days, hence the word 'easiest'. Maybe 'best' would have > been a better choice of word. These sub-BL listings still have been used in 3.1.x, no need to dig

Re: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-19 Thread Benny Pedersen
On tor 19 aug 2010 02:21:26 CEST, wrote A release or two ago, default inclusion of Postmaster and Abuse lists at RFC-Ignorant.org were turned off (some will say for good reason). What is easiest way to turn them back on again? meta it from subrules, both exists as __foo here i do # # me

RE: abuse/postmaster lists at RFC-Ignorant.org

2010-08-19 Thread Benny Pedersen
On tor 19 aug 2010 10:19:47 CEST, wrote Re- hijack - sorry - it was 1:20am when I sent this ... we all make mistakes :) road to hell is paid with good intentions :) RE- 'digging' ... I have, but SA seems to have come along a fair bit since SA2.5 days, hence the word 'easiest'. Maybe 'best

Re: How the hell barracuda behaves?

2010-08-19 Thread Benny Pedersen
On tor 19 aug 2010 03:14:50 CEST, Marc Perkel wrote Now you're going to criticize me for explaining what you just asked for? moderator did not criticize but say imho just this is not your market place -- xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html