On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:45 AM, RW wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:15:25 +0000 > Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > >> However, neither of these have been accepted by the >> p5-Mail-SpamAssassin port maintainer. > > It's not really a one-size fits all problem - it depends on which > channels you use and whether you want sa-compile (which isn't > supported by either script quoted).
Of course both of these scripts could be easily modified to meet local needs. The second script already had some customization hooks built in. > sa-update is very cheap to run - if there's no update it's just a dns > lookup. If you're using the auto-generated "sought" rules you may wish > to update several times a day. OTOH sa-compile is very cpu intensive, > and once a day may be too much. That is all true. If you are maintaining a high traffic site (for which sa-compile would be useful) then you will probably be rolling your own maintenance scripts anyway. But none of this is not a reason to not include something like these in the SA port. Alternatively, if someone were sufficiently motived they could put together an SA utilities port that installs a number of maintenance scripts which a user can enable. > One other thing is that just I always use sa-update with > --gpghomedir. If you use the default you loose any third-party public > keys each time the SA port is reinstalled. That is useful to know. Thank you both for your help on getting me to maintain my system better. Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
