John Hardin wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >But, but, but... It also failed lint and produced cron noise on my
> >perl 5.20.1 system too. Running spamassassin 3.4.0. That is later
> >than perl 5.18 and it definitely produced the warning message.
>
> That's two separate issues. The perl RE lint *e
On 2014-12-03 15:39, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/12/2014 21:57, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running that old
perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all of the goodness
gets backports, not just with perl, but with most other t
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
There have been multiple facets to this problem. The first was a rule
update that produced warnings that produced email from every cron run
sa-update / sa-learn run if run on recent released spamassassin 3.4.0
but not
John Hardin wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > There have been multiple facets to this problem. The first was a rule
> > update that produced warnings that produced email from every cron run
> > sa-update / sa-learn run if run on recent released spamassassin 3.4.0
> > but not the development trunk ver
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
There have been multiple facets to this problem. The first was a rule
update that produced warnings that produced email from every cron run
sa-update / sa-learn run if run on recent released spamassassin 3.4.0
but not the development trunk version.
That w
Jim Clausing wrote:
> What I haven't noticed anyone else mention is that I was getting that error
> message even though the perl on my Ubuntu 14.04 system is 5.18.2.
You left off your spamassassin version. I assume 3.4.0? On my Debian
sid system. (But never use Unstable for a production system.
On 12/3/2014 6:39 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/12/2014 21:57, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running
that old perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all
of the goodness gets backports, not just with perl, but with most
oth
On 03/12/2014 21:57, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running that
>> old perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all of the
>> goodness gets backports, not just with perl, but with most other things.
> I can't fight every
On 12/3/2014 7:38 AM, Jim Clausing wrote:
What I haven't noticed anyone else mention is that I was getting that
error message even though the perl on my Ubuntu 14.04 system is 5.18.2.
No, they mentioned it - the problem is that the proposed "fix" to allow
inclusion of the new fancy rules on
What I haven't noticed anyone else mention is that I was getting that
error message even though the perl on my Ubuntu 14.04 system is 5.18.2.
--
Jim Clausing
GIAC GSE #26, GREM-Gold, CISSP
GPG fingerprint = 4780 13A4 F33E BF4E AE86 0D64 0EFD B3E3 03BF 407A
On or about Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Noel But
On 12/2/2014 10:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 03/12/2014 12:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will
have bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is
drawn and say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty
of
On 03/12/2014 12:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have
>> bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn and say
>> - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of notice, I think 12
>> months not
On 12/2/2014 5:50 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything
older have far greater issues :)
(says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe
but theyll join the 14 series this Christ
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrai
On 03/12/2014 03:08, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Noel Butler skrev den 2014-12-02 05:38:
> On 01/12/2014 22:27, Benny Pedersen wrote: Please turn of html never going to
> happen
this will be added so to my sieve autoreader, eg i can save reading your
hints of my own problems again
Benny you don
On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have
>> far greater issues :)
>>
>> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but theyll
>> join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them
jdow wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine
> > > work on the project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road
> > > discourage you from future work. That would be a tragedy for the
> > > project and for the u
On 12/02/2014 09:10 PM, jdow wrote:
Does this show the error?
if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
&& version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit}
])/
endif
It doesn't show the
On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > F
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in
> -Original Message-
> From: Niamh Holding [mailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:27 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric
>
>
> Hello Noel,
>
> Tuesday, Dec
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501
> test so I
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501
> test so I would stick with just that for now.
O
Noel Butler skrev den 2014-12-02 05:38:
On 01/12/2014 22:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Please turn of html
never going to happen
this will be added so to my sieve autoreader, eg i can save reading your
hints of my own problems again
jdow skrev den 2014-12-01 23:56:
I just added the following to my user-prefs file:
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS && !__VIA_ML &&
!__VIA_RESIGNER
endif
No error here SL6.6, perl 5.10.1 and SA 3.3.1.
good, but 3.4.2 do
Hello Noel,
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 4:57:08 AM, you wrote:
NB> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have
far greater issues
CentOS 5.11 doesn't go EOL until 2017 and it has 5.8.8
--
Best regards,
Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.
On 12/1/2014 11:57 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 02/12/2014 10:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only
clean solution is
can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low
On 02/12/2014 10:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
>> solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
>
> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think
On 01/12/2014 22:27, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Please turn of html
never going to happen
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 501
test so I would stick with just that for now.
Ok.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >
> > It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
> > solution is can(Mail::SpamAssass
On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to im
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to im
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_501)
With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to
implement the perl_min_version function. Do you w
On 12/01/2014 09:18 PM, Burnie wrote:
On 12/01/2014 08:50 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
$ spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
running on Perl version 5.14.2
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, David B Funk wrote:
# spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.3.1
running on Perl version 5.10.0
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
is silent (no errors, no warnings in a --lint)
So it looks lik
On 2014-12-01 12:18, Burnie wrote:
On 12/01/2014 08:50 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
$ spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
running on Perl version 5.14.2
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __P
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Burnie wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
jdow wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
end
On 12/01/2014 08:50 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
$ spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
running on Perl version 5.14.2
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
metaPDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS && !__VIA_ML &&
!__
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
Burnie wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
jdow wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
Yes. That *does* work.
Thank you! I
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 9:21 AM, Burnie wrote:
> But I was thinking another solution to the problem;
>
> Since there already are quite a few changes to 3.4(+) (quite a few
> checking for version >= 3.004000 in the
John Hardin wrote:
> Burnie wrote:
> >John Hardin wrote:
> >> jdow wrote:
> >>> Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
> >>> > if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
> >>>body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> >>> endif
> >>
> >> Yes. That *does* work.
> >>
> >> Thank
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 9:21 AM, Burnie wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> > Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
> >
> > if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
> >body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> > endi
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
>
> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
>body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> endif
Yes. That *does* work.
Thank you! I think you just
On 12/1/2014 10:25 AM, Joe Quinn wrote:
http://search.cpan.org/~bdfoy/Perl-Version/lib/Perl/Version.pm
Not really because we want to make the check in a config file delivered
by SA-UPDATE without any changes to SA that will ripple to older SA
installations. And I don't think we have an issue i
On 12/1/2014 10:11 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 9:21 AM, Burnie wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
Yes. That *does* wo
On 12/1/2014 10:24 AM, Joe Quinn wrote:
On 12/1/2014 10:11 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/1/2014 9:21 AM, Burnie wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_
On 12/1/2014 9:21 AM, Burnie wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
Yes. That *does* work.
Thank you! I think you just solved it.
D
On 11/30/2014 11:29 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
Yes. That *does* work.
Thank you! I think you just solved it.
Define work...
---
if version
On 1. dec. 2014 11.55.55 Noel Butler wrote:
you are free to, ordinarily I'd say contribute to it, but knowing you
Benny, I would enshrine a total ban on anything you submit anywhere, so
I'll say my other response, you are free to not use it and find
something else and leave us in peace.
Pleas
On 01/12/2014 19:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 1. dec. 2014 02.06.51 jdow wrote:
>
>> The "if perl_version" line must be at least partially parsed so that the
>> endif parsing works.
>
> Design faults, is spamassassin really that bad ?
you are free to, ordinarily I'd say contribute t
Had you read it, you would see that it is now corrected, or should be
within hours.
On 01/12/2014 20:08, Martin wrote:
> I haven't read all this thread, since it went ballistic Sunday, too much to
> read but there seems to be a misconception this is an sa-update problem from
I haven’t read all this thread, since it went ballistic Sunday, too much to
read but there seems to be a misconception this is an sa-update problem from
what I have read. This is not the case the if perl_version causes problems
in sa-learn and spamassassin too.
What dose seem strange is that spama
Am 01.12.2014 um 10:25 schrieb Benny Pedersen:
On 1. dec. 2014 02.06.51 jdow wrote:
The "if perl_version" line must be at least partially parsed so
that the
endif parsing works.
Design faults, is spamassassin really that bad ?
don't start the same as on the dovecot list here followed
On 1. dec. 2014 02.06.51 jdow wrote:
The "if perl_version" line must be at least partially parsed so that the
endif parsing works.
Design faults, is spamassassin really that bad ?
Hello Ted,
Sunday, November 30, 2014, 7:50:49 PM, you wrote:
TM> assuming
TM> your package maintainers are following the new releases of SA
There's an assumption!
CentOS 6
spamassassin.x86_64 3.3.1-3.el6base
CentOS 7
spamassassin-3.3.2-18.el7.x86_64.
On 2014-11-30 18:46, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
OK, would this work? Use the fact that the thing defaults to a string. I would
"guess" the value would be "perl_version".
if (( perl_version != "perl_version" ) && ( perl_version >= 5.01 ))
bad stuff
e
On 01/12/2014 11:10, John Hardin wrote:
It has been. It's waiting for the normal masscheck process to generate
a new rules update.
That's excellent, thanks John.
On 01/12/2014 09:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.12.2014 um 00:22 schrieb Noel Butler:
>
>> huh? who doesnt null out cron these days and allow for
>> in-individual-cron-file error reporting
>
> everybody who want to face warnings before the get fatal
>
> frankly every part of our applicat
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
OK, would this work? Use the fact that the thing defaults to a string. I
would "guess" the value would be "perl_version".
if (( perl_version != "perl_version" ) && ( perl_version >= 5.01 ))
bad stuff
endif
Nope. != is also a numeric compar
On 2014-11-30 17:16, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On 2014-11-30 14:29, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > > On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
> > > > >if version > 3.004001
> >
On 2014-11-30 17:12, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine work on the
project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road discourage you from
future work. That would be a tragedy for the project and for t
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
>
> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
>body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> endif
exactly that's what i menat with "from my knowledge the 'if perl_version'
should not get touched in that
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On 2014-11-30 14:29, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > > On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
> > > > >if version > 3.004001
> > > > if perl_version >= 5.01
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote:
On 01/12/2014 04:52, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.11.2014 um 05:39 schrieb John Hardin: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald
wrote: if that rule can't work in most environments and not made conditionally
it has to b
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine work
on the project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road discourage
you from future work. That would be a tragedy for the project and for
the users.
Oh, it won't do that.
It's
On 2014-11-30 15:00, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 30. nov. 2014 23.15.50 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>>> if version > 3.004001
>>>if perl_version >= 5.01
>>> body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
>>>endif
>>> endif
What do you see wrong with the use of th
On 2014-11-30 14:30, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 11/30/2014 5:20 PM, jdow wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
{^_^}
The core issue is that only SA currently in trunk contains
On 2014-11-30 14:29, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
> > > if version > 3.004001
> > if perl_version >= 5.01
> > body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
John Hardin wrote:
> I underestimated the reaction to having such a warning emitted. I will
> disable that rule until the perl_version catability is offically released.
I wanted to take a moment to say thank you John for working with the
community to resolve this problem. That just by itself is a
Am 01.12.2014 um 00:22 schrieb Noel Butler:
huh? who doesnt null out cron these days and allow for
in-individual-cron-file error reporting
everybody who want to face warnings before the get fatal
frankly every part of our applications designed to run also in cronjob
is supposed to not output
On 01/12/2014 04:52, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 30.11.2014 um 05:39 schrieb John Hardin: On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl
> Harald wrote: if that rule can't work in most environments and not made
> conditionally it has to be dropped at all because it has m
On 30/11/2014 21:23, Martin wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Martin Gregorie [mailto:mar...@gregorie.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:08 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric On Sat, 2014-11-29
On 30. nov. 2014 23.15.50 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>>> if version > 3.004001
>>>if perl_version >= 5.01
>>> body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
>>>endif
>>> endif
What do you see wrong with the use of the can/has solution that both
Mark and I prop
On 30. nov. 2014 23.00.54 John Hardin wrote:
>> if version > 3.004001
>>if perl_version >= 5.01
>> body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
>>endif
>> endif
>
> If this works now in spamassassin 3.3.2, problem solved, can i send bitcoins
> somewhere ? :)
Am 30.11.2014 um 23:29 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
> > > if version > 3.004001
> > if perl_version >= 5.01
> > body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w
On 11/30/2014 5:20 PM, jdow wrote:
Would a corrected syntax version of this work?
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
{^_^}
The core issue is that only SA currently in trunk contains the code for
the if functionality on the perl
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
additionally if you have the "if perl_version" *inside* a "if version" and
only apply it that way to SA >= 3.4.0 the warnings at least would only occur
on systems with a old perl and recent SA which is hopefully the minority
Not true, please see my d
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
>
> > if version > 3.004001
> > if perl_version >= 5.01
> > body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> > endif
> > endif
>
>
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I think we have to accept from the noise on the traffic that the warning is
not considered acceptable.
Yeah.
What do you see wrong with the use of the can/has solution that both Mark and
I proposed? I think it will be trivial and should not cause
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
On 2014-11-30 13:13, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 5)
> make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if
> (version
> > = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA bigger than
> > 3.4.0
>
On 2014-11-30 13:58, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
if version > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endif
If this works now in spa
On 11/30/2014 4:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
if version > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endif
If this works now in spa
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, jdow wrote:
Perhaps the rules that need the version check could be put into a separate
file that is only used with SA version 3.4.x and above. It might be possible
to get the appropriate sa_update patch for older versions through Red Hat, if
that is needed. It might not be
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
if version > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endif
If this works now in spamassassin 3.3.2, problem solved, can i send
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> I guess the $64K question is, does the new rule that's version dependent
> Increase the "spam catch" Because if it does, then I don't regard it as a
> problem. Instead, I want it!
The real $64K question is: If you really want it (in yo
Am 30.11.2014 um 22:22 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 30.11.2014 um 22:13 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
5)
make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if
(version > = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA
bigger than 3.4.0 inst
On 2014-11-30 13:13, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
5)
make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if (version
> = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA bigger than 3.4.0
instead of the perl check
why that would work?
well, ol
Perhaps the rules that need the version check could be put into a separate file
that is only used with SA version 3.4.x and above. It might be possible to get
the appropriate sa_update patch for older versions through Red Hat, if that is
needed. It might not be if 3.3.x does not load rule files
Am 30.11.2014 um 22:13 schrieb John Hardin:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
5)
make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if
(version > = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA
bigger than 3.4.0 instead of the perl check
why that would work?
wel
On 30. nov. 2014 22.15.12 John Hardin wrote:
if version > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endif
If this works now in spamassassin 3.3.2, problem solved, can i send
bitcoins somewhere ? :)
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
5)
make the condition to the SA version, there are already ton's of "if (version
> = 3.004000)" rules and so it needs just to depend on SA bigger than
3.4.0 instead of the perl check
why that would work?
well, older RHEL versions as you said won't up
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, John Hardin wrote:
if release > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endif
dammit.
if version > 3.004001
if perl_version >= 5.01
body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
endif
endi
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 30. nov. 2014 20.53.19 John Hardin wrote:
Sadly that doesn't work. The else branch of a conditional still gets
partially parsed, so the perl_version type warning is still emitted even
if it is inside a conditional that evaluates to false.
Try
Am 30.11.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Dave Pooser:
On 11/30/14, 2:04 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
it's *not* about a "crufty version of perl"
it's about a perl version check not existing in SpamAssassin 3.4.0
it's visible on recent perl versions
without the version checks issing the warnings they had
On 11/30/14, 2:04 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
>it's *not* about a "crufty version of perl"
>
>it's about a perl version check not existing in SpamAssassin 3.4.0
>it's visible on recent perl versions
>without the version checks issing the warnings they had no problem
OK, I could have been clearer
How does the usual person not a member of the right mailing lists learn of this
patch? An hour spent Googling and vetting patches is an hour taken from my life
time. Fortunately for me I was still a member of this list. So I learned I can
just ignore the fool thing cluttering my mailbox. (I may
On 2014-11-30 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:17 AM, jdow wrote:
Ted, I simply do not feel well enough just now to be nice. I reiterate
my prior observation about vaguely stinky and spludgy material such as
emanates from the South end of North facing fertile male bovines.
I ha
Am 30.11.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 11/30/2014 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.11.2014 um 20:50 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
When the fix to allow older SA versions to silently accept the new
rule updates is a simple TEXT modification of 2 text Perl modules, you
are overreac
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
