This is not a spamassassin bug per-se, but rather a problem in the way
we had packaged it for years.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=141323
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161785
It would be helpful if upstream could look at the excellent explanation
Warren Togami wrote:
Wouldn't it be preferable to have a solution where spamd itself returns
when it is finished stopping rather than relying on an asynchronous kill
signal?
Warren, what do you mean by spamd itself returns when it is finished
processing? Isn't the problem how to identify the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:07:31AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
This is not a spamassassin bug per-se, but rather a problem in the way
we had packaged it for years.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=141323
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161785
It
