Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On 04.11.2009 / 09:20:16 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> polloxx wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is the spamassassin development dead?
>>> On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
>>>
>>>
>> Not quite. If you look at svn, you'l
On 04.11.2009 / 09:20:16 -0500, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> polloxx wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is the spamassassin development dead?
> > On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
> >
>
> Not quite. If you look at svn, you'll see this:
>
> spamassassin_20091103151200.tar.
Kent Borg wrote:
> I admit I have been ignoring Spamassassin because it seems to work. I
> have been pleased that Spamassassin has been regularly flagging over 94%
> of my spam. And this list seems active (if mostly ignored by me).
>
> But this e-mail caught my eye. Indeed, the version on spamas
I admit I have been ignoring Spamassassin because it seems to work. I
have been pleased that Spamassassin has been regularly flagging over 94%
of my spam. And this list seems active (if mostly ignored by me).
But this e-mail caught my eye. Indeed, the version on spamassassin.org
is old and the
On ons 04 nov 2009 15:10:45 CET, polloxx wrote
Is the spamassassin development dead?
On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
join the dev maillist and ask the same question there, but as i see
it, it being working on make sa 3.3.x stable for so long time now
polloxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the spamassassin development dead?
> On the website there's: 2008-06-12: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 has been released.
>
Not quite. If you look at svn, you'll see this:
spamassassin_20091103151200.tar.gz03-Nov-2009 15:122.1M
Doesn't look dead to me! :)
--
Bowie
