On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
posting. Especially since I don't remember who posted
On Sep 8, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to
have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
On 7 Sep 2005 at 18:46, Loren Wilton wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet? I can't find it. I'd like
to get this worked out on the BZ so we can track it as an rc3 issue
(or not).
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
try to track back
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Rudd writes:
On Sep 8, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 9/7/05, Loren Wilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet?
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to
have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
It isn't fixed in rc2.
You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
two between release cutoff and the release
has this been opened as a bug in BZ yet? I can't find it. I'd like
to get this worked out on the BZ so we can track it as an rc3 issue
(or not).
I haven't seen a sign of it. I hope the OP does this, I'd hate to have to
try to track back through 3 weeks of deleted mail to find the original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Loren Wilton writes:
It isn't fixed in rc2.
You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
two between release cutoff and the release
On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
I do not have a bug number. It's a problem I mentioned on the
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700,
Duncan Findlay schrieb:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
The one reported by him in
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I think.
I don't remember seeing any subsequent messages on the subject. And,
over on the mimedefang list the developer worked out a work-around in
mimedefang, but it still sounded like it was an SA problem.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 1:13 AM, jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700, John Rudd wrote:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
There was no subsequent discussion. I'm not sure there was even a
single reply.
The problem came up in another thread, and the submitter was advised
From: Kelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
jdow wrote:
As I remember subsequent messages on this topic a debug run showed the
problem was in MimeDefang. So of course it is not fixed.
There was no subsequent discussion. I'm not sure there was even a
single reply.
The problem came up in another
It isn't fixed in rc2.
You only posted that analysis 2 days before the rc2 release, and the tarball
had already been cut at the time you posted the message. (It takes a day or
two between release cutoff and the release showing up, since it needs to be
tested before the announcement.)
The problem came up in another thread, and the submitter was advised to
take it to the MIMEDefang list. The lead MD developer looked at it,
found that SA was messing around with SIGCHLD, and came up with a
workaround (which will be included in the next version of MD), but seems
to consider
On Monday 29 August 2005 11:57 pm, John Rudd wrote:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you really need to quote the entire message?
--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the
world. it's the only thing that ever has.
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote:
*** THIS IS A RELEASE CANDIDATE ONLY, NOT THE FINAL 3.1.0 RELEASE ***
SpamAssassin 3.1.0-rc2 is released! SpamAssassin 3.1.0 is a major
update. SpamAssassin is a mail filter which uses advanced
18 matches
Mail list logo
