Am 31.08.2016 um 18:22 schrieb John Hardin:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the
uridnsbl_skip_domain
> rules. It's just us?
It's been fixe
On 2016-08-31 14:19, Groach wrote:
On 31/08/2016 10:32, Axb wrote:
I get no errors with spamassassin --lint
Nor me. All ok.
it possible already fixed ? :=) (ioT humor)
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
> We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
> rules. It's just us?
It's been fixed, waiting for a new update to be generated by
On 31/08/2016 10:32, Axb wrote:
I get no errors with spamassassin --lint
Nor me. All ok.
Am 31.08.2016 um 13:18 schrieb Martin Gregorie:
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 12:25 +0200, Axb wrote:
Blame it on the boogie
Another data point: I haven't seen this problem. I've just searched my
Considering that it doesn't seem to hit everybody, I wonder if it could
be software related, i.e. con
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 12:25 +0200, Axb wrote:
>
> Blame it on the boogie
>
Another data point: I haven't seen this problem. I've just searched my
Considering that it doesn't seem to hit everybody, I wonder if it could
be software related, i.e. connected with specific Perl package
versions. I'm
On 08/31/2016 12:03 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:56 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 11:41 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
however, what annoys me more is that "uridnsbl_skip_domain entries have
not yet been removed" and obviosuly nobody knows why - what if there
would be a issue lea
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:56 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 11:41 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
however, what annoys me more is that "uridnsbl_skip_domain entries have
not yet been removed" and obviosuly nobody knows why - what if there
would be a issue leading to fatal errors for everybody running
"sa-up
On 08/31/2016 11:41 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:32 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 11:25 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:32 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 11:25 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nigh
On 08/31/2016 11:25 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
Am 31.08.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Axb:
On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
It's been fixed, waiting f
On 08/31/2016 10:57 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
It's been fixed, waiting for a new update to be generated by mas
Am 30.08.2016 um 22:03 schrieb John Hardin:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
It's been fixed, waiting for a new update to be generated by masscheck
i doubt that the process is working prop
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Joseph Brennan wrote:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
It's been fixed, waiting for a new update to be generated by masscheck.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@imp
Am 30.08.2016 um 21:56 schrieb Joseph Brennan:
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
no since there where yesterday at least two treads about this topic, the
first by me and AFAIR it should have been fixed last night but wasn't
which ind
We've had errors the past 2 nights for all of the uridnsbl_skip_domain
rules. It's just us?
Redhat 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64
> spamassassin -V
SpamAssassin version 3.4.0
running on Perl version 5.10.1
I'm inserting blank lines for clarity, in case my email client starts
wrapping:
config: fai
it to make a
difference, since sa-update is finding that directory on its own anyway.
I would be most appreciative of any other ideas that you may have.
Skip
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/sa-update-errors-tp24569115p24570739.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
MrGibbage wrote:
> I get errors like this when I run sa-update from cron
>
> /usr/local/bin/setlock -n /tmp/cronlock.4051759.53932 sh -c
> $'/home/skipmorrow/bin/sa-update --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel
> sought.rules.yerp.org'
>
> gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
> `/home/skipmorrow/etc/mail
pg652 1200 Jul 10 13:27 trustdb.gpg
should sa-update be looking for keys in ~/.gnupg? Or is it working
correctly? What environment variable does sa-learn and gnupg look for that
would be present in my login shell but not be present when running in a cron
environment?
--
View this message i
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:24AM -, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > On 18/02/2008 7:29 AM, Arthur Dent wrote:
> >> Gentle Bump...
> >>
> >> I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
> >> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
> >> to give these rules sc
> On 18/02/2008 7:29 AM, Arthur Dent wrote:
>> Gentle Bump...
>>
>> I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
>> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
>> to give these rules scores which surely they should have by default?
>
> What exactly do you me
On 18/02/2008 7:29 AM, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Gentle Bump...
>
> I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
> /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
> to give these rules scores which surely they should have by default?
What exactly do you mean. The
erl/5.8.5/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm line
2669.
Number found where operator expected at (eval 108) line 10, near "}
1"
(Missing operator before
1?)
rules: failed to run header tests, skipping some: syntax error at (eval 108)
line 6, at EOF
Global symbol "$plugin" requires explicit package name at (eval 108) line 7.
syntax error at (eval 108) line 11, near ";
}"
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/sa-update-errors-tp15746399p15746399.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Gentle Bump...
I thought that the approved place to alter scores was in
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf so I have not gone rooting around trying
to give these rules scores which surely they should have by default?
Are these new rules? Obsolete rules? Altered rules? Why the sudden
error?
Or have
Hello all,
I run a bog-standard out-of-the-box (Fedora 8) SA (v.3.2.4) installation.
Every night I run:
sa-update --channelfile /etc/mail/spamassassin/sare-sa-update-channels.txt
--gpgkey 856AA88A && /sbin/service spamassassin restart
as a cron job. Never been a problem before. But this morning
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ahattarki wrote:
[4724] dbg: http: GET request,
http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY
[4724] dbg: http: request failed, retrying: 500 Can't connect to
spamassassin.apache.org:80 (connect: Unknown error): 500 Can't
connec
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ahattarki wrote:
[4724] dbg: http: GET request,
http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY
[4724] dbg: http: request failed, retrying: 500 Can't connect to
spamassassin.apache.org:80 (connect: Unknown error): 500 Can't connect to
spamassas
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:18:50PM -0700, ahattarki wrote:
> [4724] dbg: http: GET request,
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY
> [4724] dbg: http: request failed, retrying: 500 Can't connect to
> spamassassin.apache.org:80 (connect: Unknown error): 500 Can't connect to
> spamassas
ahattarki wrote:
[4724] dbg: http: GET request,
http://spamassassin.apache.org/updates/MIRRORED.BY
[4724] dbg: http: request failed, retrying: 500 Can't connect to
spamassassin.apache.org:80 (connect: Unknown error): 500 Can't connect to
spamassassin.apache.org:80 (connect: Unknown error)
Any
complete, exiting with code 4
Any ideas what could be causing this ?
Thanks,
Anjali
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/sa-update-errors-out-with-no-mirror-data-available-for-channel-updates.spamassassin.org-tf3997492.html#a11353096
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:21:02AM +, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> It went in clean on all servers when I ran it this morning. I guess
> you fixed whatever the issue was?
I believe the order of what happened was:
- I pushed the update on the evening of 12/31
- In the morning of 1/1, the automatic
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 02:16:56 -0500, Theo Van Dinter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:11:03PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
>> Looks like Theo pushed through updates for the wrong version in the 3.1.x
>> channel ;) Give it an hour or so and it should be fixed.
>
>Um. No, I did
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:11:03PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
> Looks like Theo pushed through updates for the wrong version in the 3.1.x
> channel ;) Give it an hour or so and it should be fixed.
Um. No, I didn't. In fact, I upgraded my machines right after pushing
the upgrade. Doing a litt
Looks like Theo pushed through updates for the wrong version in the 3.1.x
channel ;) Give it an hour or so and it should be fixed.
By the way this is _totally_ harmless -- since the lint check failed,
sa-update didn't make any change to the existing ruleset.
--j.
Steven Stern writes:
>- From
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- From this morning's log from three of our MX servers running SA 3.1.7.
Does the channel for 3.1.7 have the wrong rules?
config: configuration file
"/tmp/.spamassassin8654JTlidztmp/20_advance_fee.cf" requires version
3.002000 of SpamAssassin, but thi
36 matches
Mail list logo
