DNS seems to have been reporting 709395 as current for about eight weeks
HK If you want more up-to-date protection, use latest SVN (3.3). That's where
HK the development happens. It's been working fine here for a long time.
All I know is I have
$ crontab -l
33 3 * * * PATH=$HOME/bin:$PATH
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 04:31:48AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
DNS seems to have been reporting 709395 as current for about eight weeks
HK If you want more up-to-date protection, use latest SVN (3.3). That's where
HK the development happens. It's been working fine here for a long time.
HK If SVN does not ring a bell,
Oh, you mean like the example on
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/grub2/docs/grub.texi?root=grubview=log
$ svn co svn://svn.sv.gnu.org/grub/trunk/grub2/docs/grub.texi
svn: URL 'svn://svn.sv.gnu.org/grub/trunk/grub2/docs/grub.texi' refers to a
file, not a
is getting through. Have the stock rule
updates ceased?
--Mike Bird
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/sa-update-damages-existing-SA-installation-tp21077491p21147137.html
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 22/12/2008 12:11 PM, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:spamassas...@dostech.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:48 AM
On 19/12/2008 5:40 AM, Marcin Krol wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
do it all at once. See my SARE sa-update page for details:
On 23/12/2008 11:18 AM, Mike Bird wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
Daily is fine, cause it means a single DNS request only most of the
time. Updates of the stock rules however usually are less frequent than
once a week.
DNS seems to have been reporting 709395 as current for about eight
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 08:18:50AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
Karsten Bräckelmann-2 wrote:
Daily is fine, cause it means a single DNS request only most of the
time. Updates of the stock rules however usually are less frequent than
once a week.
DNS seems to have been reporting 709395 as
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:spamassas...@dostech.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:48 AM
On 19/12/2008 5:40 AM, Marcin Krol wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
do it all at once. See my SARE sa-update page for details:
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
From: Daryl C. W. O'Shea [mailto:spamassas...@dostech.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:48 AM
On 19/12/2008 5:40 AM, Marcin Krol wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
do it all at once. See my SARE sa-update page for details:
Gene Heskett a écrit :
On Friday 19 December 2008, mouss wrote:
Gene Heskett a écrit :
OTOH, if I run it as root, then the clients have no perms. Tell me a way
around that please.
I run it as root, like almost everybody. the clients only need read
access to the directory, which should be
Gene Heskett a écrit :
On Thursday 18 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:13:28 -0500:
Following the above tut, step 2 fails as root owns the /etc/mail tree, and
the user running SA has no perms. What should the owner/group actually be
for that? I
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
do it all at once. See my SARE sa-update page for details:
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
Are SARE rules still being updated a bit at least / are they still working?
The home page bears warning IMPORTANT: Due to Ninjas being busy
On Friday 19 December 2008, mouss wrote:
Gene Heskett a écrit :
On Thursday 18 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:13:28 -0500:
Following the above tut, step 2 fails as root owns the /etc/mail tree,
and the user running SA has no perms. What should the
Gene Heskett wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:04:52 -0500:
2. And what do I do to my /etc/init.d/spamassassin script so it will use the
newly fetched .cf files instead of the ones in /usr/share/spamassassin?
is that spamd or what? Reload it.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at
On Friday 19 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:04:52 -0500:
2. And what do I do to my /etc/init.d/spamassassin script so it will use
the newly fetched .cf files instead of the ones in
/usr/share/spamassassin?
is that spamd or what? Reload it.
Kai
Gene Heskett wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:43:13 -0500:
Anything else, like setting up a weekly update run in that new users crontab?
sure. I think most people do it daily. If you use sa-compile adds this to the
script as well.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:31 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:43:13 -0500:
Anything else, like setting up a weekly update run in that new users
crontab?
sure. I think most people do it daily. If you use sa-compile adds this to the
script as well.
Gene Heskett a écrit :
Stumbling around in the dark, I created that user, and chowned
the /var/lib/spamassassin directory to that user:mail, made saupdate a member
of group mail.
Why? if you do random mixing of owners and groups, you'll end up making
your system more vulnerable than it
On Friday 19 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:43:13 -0500:
Anything else, like setting up a weekly update run in that new users
crontab?
sure. I think most people do it daily. If you use sa-compile adds this to
the script as well.
Kai
I didn't want
On Friday 19 December 2008, mouss wrote:
Gene Heskett a écrit :
Stumbling around in the dark, I created that user, and chowned
the /var/lib/spamassassin directory to that user:mail, made saupdate a
member of group mail.
Why? if you do random mixing of owners and groups, you'll end up making
Gene Heskett a écrit :
OTOH, if I run it as root, then the clients have no perms. Tell me a way
around that please.
I run it as root, like almost everybody. the clients only need read
access to the directory, which should be the case by default, unless you
played with the root umask.
On Friday 19 December 2008, mouss wrote:
Gene Heskett a écrit :
OTOH, if I run it as root, then the clients have no perms. Tell me a way
around that please.
I run it as root, like almost everybody. the clients only need read
access to the directory, which should be the case by default, unless
On 19/12/2008 5:40 AM, Marcin Krol wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
do it all at once. See my SARE sa-update page for details:
http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/sare/sare-sa-update-howto.txt
Are SARE rules still being updated a bit at least / are they still working?
The only one really
Hello everyone,
When I run sa-update -D --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel
sought.rules.yerp.org, it damages my SA installation!
After the update, I get:
orchidea 192.168.1.1 ~/tmp % spamassassin --lint
[15235] warn: config: warning: score set for non-existent rule URIBL_SBL
[15235] warn: config:
From: Marcin Krol mrk...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:37:12 +0100
Hello everyone,
When I run sa-update -D --gpgkey 6C6191E3 --channel
sought.rules.yerp.org, it damages my SA installation!
sa-update puts rules in /var/lib/spamassassin/VER Once this directory
Jeff Mincy wrote:
sa-update puts rules in /var/lib/spamassassin/VER Once this directory
exists all site rules are expected to come from this directory.
I found out that...
The
previous installation directory (eg /usr/local/share/spamassassin) is
ignored.
..but not that. Now it makes
On 18/12/2008 1:00 PM, Marcin Krol wrote:
Jeff Mincy wrote:
Try doing sa-update of the normal rules before you use sa-update of
additional rule sets.
Hmm, how do I do that? sa-update -–channel updates.spamassassin.org ?
Sure, or just run sa-update without a channel parameter or so create a
Marcin Krol wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:55 +0100:
Hmm, how do I do that? sa-update -channel updates.spamassassin.org ?
just sa-update. If you want to add other channels you either do it like
Daryl explains in the link below or one by one.
Is there a way to *sensibly* combine JM's
On Thursday 18 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marcin Krol wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:00:55 +0100:
Hmm, how do I do that? sa-update -channel updates.spamassassin.org ?
just sa-update. If you want to add other channels you either do it like
Daryl explains in the link below or one by one.
Gene Heskett wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:13:28 -0500:
Following the above tut, step 2 fails as root owns the /etc/mail tree, and
the
user running SA has no perms. What should the owner/group actually be for
that? I changed it to $user:mail and that seemed to fix it.
I assume your are
On Thursday 18 December 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:13:28 -0500:
Following the above tut, step 2 fails as root owns the /etc/mail tree, and
the user running SA has no perms. What should the owner/group actually be
for that? I changed it to $user:mail
31 matches
Mail list logo
