Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
R-Elists wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:56:22 -0800: i appreciate your input, yet i really wanted Warren to answer for his blog post on it in specific terms related to SA i can handle absolutes pretty easy... if we shouldnt use SARE with 3.3.x, no prob. How long have you been following *this* list? Anyone following this list with open eyes and mind should have understood a long timee ago that SARE rules don't add much value nowadays and *in general* because the SA internal rules get updated regularly and have also incorporated some SARE rules. (* some rules or rulesets may still be adding good value to some people's mailsystems. Judge yourself.) yet if ambiguous, then it needs to get more granular in the text that help and direct people in regards to 3.2.5, it makes a difference there too... since SARE isnt really supported anymore, realistically it should be pulled and only used as a reference archive, or have HEAVY recommendations not to use it and appropriate warnings. You may want to talk this out with the SARE maintainers. SARE has never been officially endorsed as a must-have, so there's no need to pull it officially either. I think it also helps to read the first page of the site. SARE has always made clear that you should not add rulesets blindly (*). You always have to track the results and then reconsider. If you did that and they are largely unhelpful you pulled them already and if they are still helpful you keep using them (or rather a subset of them). (* despite most people just doing that. The advice for these is very clear: don't use them.) Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
Just try it out. You will find that the detection rate without SARE is excellent and there's likely no benefit from SARE. Most SARE are well outdated. This applies to 3.2.5 as well. Kai Kai i appreciate your input, yet i really wanted Warren to answer for his blog post on it in specific terms related to SA i can handle absolutes pretty easy... if we shouldnt use SARE with 3.3.x, no prob. yet if ambiguous, then it needs to get more granular in the text that help and direct people in regards to 3.2.5, it makes a difference there too... since SARE isnt really supported anymore, realistically it should be pulled and only used as a reference archive, or have HEAVY recommendations not to use it and appropriate warnings. tia - rh
RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/33674.html If you use spamassassin on Fedora or RHEL5, please see my blog post for RPM packages and distro-specific notes. quote * STOP USING SARE or OpenProtect. They died a long time ago. Some of their rules are dangerous or redundant. Many of the better rules were integrated into spamassassin upstream. So how do I stop using sare or openprotect?
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
Spamassassin List wrote on Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:24:27 +0800: So how do I stop using sare or openprotect? remove the rules? remove the channels? I suppose you know if you use them or not, do you? Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
So how do I stop using sare or openprotect? remove the rules? remove the channels? I suppose you know if you use them or not, do you? Yes I am using it. Since the blog advise to stop using it, thus I am wondering how do I do so? I had remove the sa-update from my crontab. Do I need to remove all those dostech_net.cf files? regards
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
Spamassassin List wrote on Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:38:21 +0800: I had remove the sa-update from my crontab. You have to keep using sa-update! Just not these channels! Do I need to remove all those dostech_net.cf files? Of course. You have to remove everything from /var/lib/spamassassin/3.003000 that you do not want to use. As an example, that is what remains here: 70_zmi_german_cf_zmi_sa-update_dostech_net sought_rules_yerp_org 70_zmi_german_cf_zmi_sa-update_dostech_net.cf sought_rules_yerp_org.cf 90_2tld_cf_sare_sa-update_dostech_net updates_spamassassin_org 90_2tld_cf_sare_sa-update_dostech_net.cf updates_spamassassin_org.cf Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
Of course. You have to remove everything from /var/lib/spamassassin/3.003000 that you do not want to use. As an example, that is what remains here: Thank you
RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
-Original Message- From: Spamassassin List [mailto:spamassassinl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:24 AM To: 'Warren Togami'; 'SpamAssassin Dev'; 'SpamAssassin Users List' Subject: RE: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL http://wtogami.livejournal.com/33674.html If you use spamassassin on Fedora or RHEL5, please see my blog post for RPM packages and distro-specific notes. quote * STOP USING SARE or OpenProtect. They died a long time ago. Some of their rules are dangerous or redundant. Many of the better rules were integrated into spamassassin upstream. So how do I stop using sare or openprotect? Warren and Others... just for clarification... by this website are you saying that we should only stop using SARE and OpenProtect on 3.3.0 and later... or are you saying that some of the SARE rules were put into 3.2.5 ??? tia - rh
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
R-Elists wrote on Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:41:23 -0800: by this website are you saying that we should only stop using SARE and OpenProtect on 3.3.0 and later... or are you saying that some of the SARE rules were put into 3.2.5 ??? Just try it out. You will find that the detection rate without SARE is excellent and there's likely no benefit from SARE. Most SARE are well outdated. This applies to 3.2.5 as well. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Warren Togami wrote: http://wtogami.livejournal.com/33674.html If you use spamassassin on Fedora or RHEL5, please see my blog post for RPM packages and distro-specific notes. Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm? Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update channels in due time? - C
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
Charles Gregory wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:10:51 -0500 (EST): Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm? Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update channels in due time? Just do yourself. Follow the instructions on the download page, it's a *one liner* ! Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
On 01/26/2010 03:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Charles Gregory wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:10:51 -0500 (EST): Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm? Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update channels in due time? Just do yourself. Follow the instructions on the download page, it's a *one liner* ! Kai FWIW, RHEL4 is older than anything I expect that .src.rpm to work with. You may also need to build your own perl modules that might be missing. Warren
Re: spamassassin-3.3.0 for Fedora/RHEL
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Charles Gregory wrote on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:10:51 -0500 (EST): Anyone know where to find a RHEL(CentOS) 4 rpm? Or will it appear in the CentOS 4 official update channels in due time? Just do yourself. Follow the instructions on the download page, it's a *one liner* ! Ideally I want to keep things 'download and install' so that the proverbial trained monkey can recreate this server in future. There is also the minor advantage of having someone else *test* the rpm so that any issues are resolved before I try to run it on a live system But yes, if there is no 'official' rpm forthcoming, I will be building my own. (smile) But I figured I would see what is in the pipe first... - C
