Op Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:08:00 +0100 schreef Daniel Perup dan...@perup.net:
I'm having problems with spamd and the -G option. It seems that spamd
does not honor the whiteexp value at all, but uses the default value at
all times:
That is a sweeping statement, coming from just one test case.
As you can see, the default 36 days are still in effect.
spamdb(8) doesn't talk to spamd(8) when whitelisting, not even to
receive
the whiteexp value. It just manipulates spamd's database using
default
values.
Ok. I've verified this by looking at entries added by spamd as opposed
to
* Boudewijn Dijkstra boudew...@indes.com [2010-11-02 12:18]:
spamdb(8) doesn't talk to spamd(8) when whitelisting
that should be changed, last not least so that db manipulations (not
just whitelisting of course) by spamdb are being synced to the other
nodes by spamd.
someone has to do that,
Hi,
I'm having problems with spamd and the -G option. It seems that spamd does
not honor the whiteexp value at all, but uses the default value at all
times:
# pkill spam
# /usr/libexec/spamd -G 4:10:500
# /usr/libexec/spamd-setup -D
# /usr/libexec/spamlogd
# spamdb -a 1.2.3.4
# spamdb|grep
4 matches
Mail list logo
