Yes, that does look like it. If that hasn't made it into the standard
Fedora repo by the time of my next scheduled update I'll pull it it from
Testing - I've got enough other stuff I need to deal with right now
without adding in a 3.3.2-3.4.0 conversion.
Final follow-up
===
Yesterday
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 02:41 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
If that is the culprit, the easiest, fastest and most painless way of
getting a fully functional SA back, is to revert the recent Perl
Net::DNS upgrade.
Yes, I can now confirm that the problem was the recent upgrade of
Net::DNS
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 03:01 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
That error message rings a bell. Will (aragonx?) posted that line very
recently, and updated the thread himself just today, pointing to a RH /
Fedora 20 bugzilla report for its SA 3.3.2 package, related to Perl
Net::DNS 0.76 (once
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 09:13 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 03:01 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096405
Comment 5 also mentions an issue with Perl Net::DNS 0.75, which is the
exact version the package upgrade pulled
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 02:48 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:34 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
LATER: This morning I reran some failing examples after rebooting the
test machine. No change, so I tried a
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 17:39 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 02:48 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
A quick googlin' brings up spamassassin 3.3.2-18.fc20 for Fedora 20, in
a single package shipping both spamc and spamd in /usr/bin.
After deleting and reinstalling (yum
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 20:15 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
$ which -a spamc
'locate spamc' turned up a copy of spamc 3.2.4 in /usr/local/bin dated
2008. I can't remember how it might have got there since I've only ever
installed SA from the Fedora repo. Anyway, that is gone now and both
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 23:07 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 20:15 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The testsa script looks like this:
state=$(spamdstatus)
if [ $state == 'spamd is stopped' ]
then
sudo systemctl start spamassassin.service
fi
Most
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:21 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I haven't really used systemd yet, but one fundamental design decision
is, that systemd itself takes care about sockets and stuff, returning
early and asynchronously lets the service complete starting up in the
background.
That
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:20 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 01:21 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
For bonus-points, watch the logs for spamd claiming to be ready.
Here you go:
Jun 1 01:07:41 zappa spamd[15831]: plugin: eval failed: Insecure
dependency in connect
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:34 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
LATER: This morning I reran some failing examples after rebooting the
test machine. No change, so I tried a few stripped-down runs, i.e. I
started spamd via a test script
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 05:04 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I've looked down the list a couple of times and didn't see anything I
thought would affect it due to a
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
I was doing some cleanup on my private rule collection, which meant
running SA 3.3.2 with the command:
$ spamassassin -D
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
I was doing some cleanup on my private rule collection, which meant
running
--As of May 23, 2014 11:23:44 PM +0100, Martin Gregorie is alleged to have
said:
This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
amended a rule to recognise a new spam variant. The test box is running
a fully patched (as of last Friday) copy of Fedora 20. Then I did my
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
This afternoon I ran into two oddities. I haven't noticed the first in
the past and have never seen the second before.
1) Missing DCC_CHECK rule
=
install and enable DCC
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
=
This morning SA 3.3.2 was working as expected on my SA test box when I
amended a rule
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 18:37 -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
Two quick questions: Does it happen to *every* message passed to spamc, and
does restarting spamd solve it?
It seems to. At least its consistently done that to a semi-random
selection of my example spam collection over several tests. Each
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 00:34 +0200, Axb wrote:
On 05/24/2014 12:23 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
2 Failure of spamc/spamd to output any X-Spam headers
=
This morning SA 3.3.2
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
Is that everything that was upgraded, or just the Perl bits?
Just the Perl bits.
Figured as much. That rather
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:10 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 01:12 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The yum upgrade replaced three Perl libraries:
Is that everything that was upgraded, or just the
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I'll post the complete list either later today or on Tuesday (this is
the start of the second May Bank Holiday weekend).
Here you go. This is the yum upgrade summary:
Packages Installed:
kernel-PAE-3.14.4-200.fc20.i686
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 03:28 +0100, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 02:36 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
I've looked down the list a couple of times and didn't see anything I
thought would affect it due to a possibly bad assumption that this sort
of error would be insulated
23 matches
Mail list logo
