Your message dated Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:49:16 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#450711:
has caused the Debian Bug report #450711,
regarding fails to start with "can't initialize DKIM library"
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)


-- 
450711: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=450711
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dkim-filter
Version: 2.0.2.dfsg-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

dkim-filter(2.3.2.dfsg-1) fails to start with settings that works with 
version2.0.2.dfsg-1.
Only message is in syslog: "dkim-filter[26391]:can't initialize DKIM library.".
Settings are checked and are valid for version 2.3.2.dfsg-1.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (650, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-5-486
Locale: LANG=nl_NL, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL (charmap=ISO-8859-1)

Versions of packages dkim-filter depends on:
ii  adduser                       3.102      Add and remove users and groups
ii  libc6                         2.6.1-1+b1 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libdb4.5                      4.5.20-11  Berkeley v4.5 Database Libraries [
ii  libmilter1                    8.14.1-9   Sendmail Mail Filter API (Milter)
ii  libssl0.9.8                   0.9.8g-1   SSL shared libraries

dkim-filter recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Jos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >That's showing 2.0.2 still?
> >  
> I didn't notice that, sorry.
> It seems that somehow when I removed 2.0.2. the process was not 
> killed??.  So I thought 2.4.4 was running.
> I killed the process, and now 2.4.4 is running without any errors.
> 
> Mike, thank you for all the good work.

Great news.

-- 
Mike Markley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to