On 17 Feb 2002 11:29:53 -0800 Craig Hughes wrote: > I'll happily accept patches.
Yeah, I've been meaning to do it for several weeks now, but it's not going to happen any time soon. I was hoping someone would see this and say "what a great idea, I think I'll do that." Apparently not. > In the meantime, killing spamd won't cause > any loss of mail, only loss of identification of spam messages for that > fraction of a second when it's not listening, or for those messages Sorry, didn't mean to imply mail would be lost, just not scanned. (On my speedy Sparc 2 mailserver, that "fraction of a second" is closer to 20 seconds. Still, not a big problem.) On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:56:47 -0700 Charlie Watts wrote: > If you simply can't miss any mail, there is an easy workaround. Start a > new spamd on a new port; Change the spamc config to point to that new > port. Kill the old spamd. Start a new spamd on the normal port; Change > spamc to point to the normal port. Kill the alternate-port spamd. Cute. It's not that critical, but if it were I might find the time to write the SIGHUP handler :) Tom _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
