: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 1:57 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Running on Debian stable
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same basic
question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin
Gary V wrote:
Found it, changed it, seems to work like a charm.
Now let's see if the new rules actually catch more spam than the
basic stable install. :-)
Thanks again
Miles
I never took the time to set up RulesDuJour or study which SARE rules
might be the most appropriate for me.
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 04:52:24PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Thanks Gary!
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
After trying out backports' 3.1.3 I have gone back to 3.0.3. I had
regular entries in /var/log/mail.info like this:
Aug
Johann Spies wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 04:52:24PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Thanks Gary!
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
After trying out backports' 3.1.3 I have gone back to 3.0.3. I had
regular entries in
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same basic
question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on Debian stable.
But... unlike Raymond Wan, I'm accessing spamassassin with postfix and
amavisd-new. The current install is already set up to run
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same basic
question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on Debian stable.
But... unlike Raymond Wan, I'm accessing spamassassin with postfix and
amavisd-new. The current install is already set up to run
Thanks Gary!
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
Miles
Gary V wrote:
Hi Folks,
Just came across this thread in the archives, and I have the same
basic question re. upgrading to a newer version of spamassassin on
Debian stable.
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Any advantages to installing from testing? Seems like backports would
be just a bit safer.
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less
Am 04.09.2006 um 01:51 schrieb Gary V:
Since there is a good backport available and maintained there is
really no advantage to pulling in the testing version. The backport
one would be safer in the sense of being less likely to have your
system get into a confusing state of mismatched
I agree. The only advantage as of today is sarge-backports is at 3.1.3
and test/unstable is at 3.1.4. Hopefully that will not be the case for
long, and when sarge-backports gets a little more up to date, upgrading
from this point is trivial.
Gary V
Debian Volatile Sloppy repository
Hi Folks,
So far, so good - thanks for all the input!
I did the basic upgrade from backports, reloaded amavis and postfix, and
all seems to be working just fine (note that I discovered that I also
had to upgrade spamc, separately, from backports).
One follow-up question:
Gary V wrote:
If
Hi Folks,
So far, so good - thanks for all the input!
I did the basic upgrade from backports, reloaded amavis and postfix, and
all seems to be working just fine (note that I discovered that I also had
to upgrade spamc, separately, from backports).
One follow-up question:
Gary V wrote:
If
Found it, changed it, seems to work like a charm.
Now let's see if the new rules actually catch more spam than the basic
stable install. :-)
Thanks again
Miles
Gary V wrote:
The patch is for newer versions of amavisd-new. You can manually add
the necessary line.
edit
Found it, changed it, seems to work like a charm.
Now let's see if the new rules actually catch more spam than the basic
stable install. :-)
Thanks again
Miles
I never took the time to set up RulesDuJour or study which SARE rules might
be the most appropriate for me. This thread was
Gary V wrote:
As far as SpamAssassin goes, I don't believe there is a significant
difference in what a .deb package provides and what installing from source
provides (which is essentially what CPAN does, bringing dependencies with
it). I think you would find the program files and rules
Hi Gary,
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
installs an initscript, so there are advantages. Mixing both methods is often
a bad thing however.
Ok, I'll definite refrain myself from doing that.
Are you using DCC/Razor2/Pyzor? Are they (along
with other network based tests) working?
Hi Loren,
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Loren Wilton wrote:
For the main rules files you basically can't do this. It would theoreticaly
be possible, but it would take someone a lot of work to figure out what could
be done and then do it. It is far easier to update the whole package, which
will
Hi Michel,
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Michel Vaillancourt wrote:
Hi, Ray. I'm a Debian admin as well. However, my experience has
been that for Spamassassin in particular, don't use the .deb package.
Instead, run the CPAN install process; I have it set as a CRON job that
fires monthly. You'll
Hi Gary and others,
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
read this, it may validate your choice to stay stable:
http://www200.pair.com/mecham/spam/kernel.html
No, I'll definitely stay with stable. I have dabbled with testing
for a bit and it was fun learning about Debian and breaking it and
Hi Gary and others,
Thanks for the instructions; I will give that a try. My upgrade with
backports.org went successful and I did it before reading Michel's message
about using CPAN to install SA. It's catching 25% of the spam now, instead
of 0%...I've seen a few messages about boosting its
I was wondering whether it is possible to update the rules and not the
software. I guess not? spamassassin in Debian is one package? But
anyway, I'll do your backports.org suggestion -- thanks!
To an extent you can do this. For instance www.rulesemporium.com releases a
number of addon
Raymond Wan wrote:
I could also go up to testing or *gasp* unstable, but I really don't
want to. I'm not a very good system admin and don't really know how to
fix some things when they break. Also would rather have a working
system than a up-to-the-minute system.
I was wondering
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
I would suggest installing a newer version from backports.org.
Thanks for the suggestion! I was not aware of backports.org at all.
I could also go up to testing or *gasp* unstable, but I really don't want
to. I'm not a very good system
28 15 * * * /usr/bin/sa-update /usr/bin/spamassassin --lint
/etc/init.d/spamd restart
Sorry, that should have been:
[...] /etc/init.d/spamassassin restart
Gary V
_
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan
On Friday 18 August 2006 07:10, Raymond Wan took the opportunity to say:
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
I would suggest installing a newer version from backports.org.
Thanks for the suggestion! I was not aware of backports.org at
all.
I could also go up to
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
You could install just spamassassin (but not spamc) from testing, without
having to pull in anything else.
There's also a spamassassin on dabian 'volatile'
under 'volatile-sloppy' (from sources.list):
deb http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian-volatile
On Friday 18 August 2006 07:10, Raymond Wan took the opportunity to say:
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
I would suggest installing a newer version from backports.org.
Thanks for the suggestion! I was not aware of backports.org at
all.
I could also go up to testing or
Hi all,
I'm having a problem running spamassassin on Debian stable (version 3.1).
All of my spam (and I get about 5-10/day) is being marked as ham with a
score of 0.1. In the few days so far that I've ran it, nothing has been
marked as spam except for the test spam file which came with the
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Gary V wrote:
I would suggest installing a newer version from backports.org.
Thanks for the suggestion! I was not aware of backports.org at
all.
I could also go up to testing or *gasp* unstable, but I really
don't want to. I'm not a very good system
30 matches
Mail list logo
