required. I'm not 100% definite though. let's see if anyone else
weighs in ;)
As far as I'm concerned rulz is rulz.
If it is a rule that requires new code to work, then the new code better in
some way come with the new rule. Otherwise there is no point in
distributing the (unworkable) rule,
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 05:22:19AM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
If it is a rule that requires new code to work, then the new code better in
some way come with the new rule. Otherwise there is no point in
distributing the (unworkable) rule, and no point in listing it in sa-update.
(And,
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4972
Summary: 'oops, no id' from DNSBL lookup rules
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: Other
OS/Version: other
Status: NEW
http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/t-solaris-10/builds/147/test_3/0
http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/t-sol10-561/builds/149/test/0
http://buildbot.spamassassin.org/t-sol10-561/builds/150/test/0
spamd_hup.t is failing -- intermittently -- since the ipv6
patch was applied. I haven't had a chance to
