Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2007-01-01 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:23:59 -0500, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote: Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1 branch rules changes via sa-update? At the moment, we push out the updates manually.

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2007-01-01 Thread Graham Murray
Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, I pushed an update yesterday evening. :P I have just run sa-update on my 3.1.7 system and it fails lint tests. First it makes several complaints about rules needing version 3.2, then warnings about scores set for nonexistent rules, lastly lots

RE: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2007-01-01 Thread Michael Scheidell
-Original Message- From: Graham Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 5:13 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, I pushed an update yesterday

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:46:01 +, Nigel Frankcom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:23:59 -0500, Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote: Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1 branch

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread Shaun T. Erickson
Regardless of the reason, is my SA now broken, and in any case, how do I recover from this? -- -ste

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread Nigel Frankcom
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:25:53 -0500, Shaun T. Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regardless of the reason, is my SA now broken, and in any case, how do I recover from this? No, your SA won't be broken. IIRC SA won't apply anything if there's a failure. At least my SA is still running fine here

RE: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread R Lists06
No, your SA won't be broken. IIRC SA won't apply anything if there's a failure. At least my SA is still running fine here after my attempted update this morning. I didn't restart after the failure so in theory at least SA should still be running off the old set even if the new set did cause

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread Andy Figueroa
Concur. I noted the errors when I ran sa-update -D a little while ago. But, best I can tell, nothing changed. Even the temporary files in /tmp were deleted. I also checked /etc/mail/spamassassin and only the date got changed on the sa-update-keys directory, but nothing new in the

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2007-01-01 Thread Justin Mason
Theo Van Dinter writes: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote: Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1 branch rules changes via sa-update? At the moment, we push out the updates manually. It could be automated (I already have a

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2007-01-01 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:13:06PM +, Justin Mason wrote: 3.2 has automatic updates, which some of us (ok, at least me,) is still not too sure about. I don't know -- I think the manual process hasn't been working out too great, myself, to be honest ;) Since the automatic process

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules? or Did I miss an SA version update?

2007-01-01 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Andy Figueroa wrote: Concur. I noted the errors when I ran sa-update -D a little while ago. But, best I can tell, nothing changed. Even the temporary files in /tmp were deleted. I also checked /etc/mail/spamassassin and only the date got changed

SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2006-12-31 Thread Larry Rosenman
Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1 branch rules changes via sa-update? I know I've seen commits to branches/3.1, but no sa-update since 12/19 Just asking... -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2006-12-31 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote: Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1 branch rules changes via sa-update? At the moment, we push out the updates manually. It could be automated (I already have a script that does 95% of it, which I

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2006-12-31 Thread Phil Barnett
On Monday 01 January 2007 01:23, Theo Van Dinter wrote: Generally, updates get put in, and then whenever someone feels like pushing it, they can.  I usually put in small commits for specific sets of rules, and could do multiple edits before I want an update to occur. So, does that mean that

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2006-12-31 Thread Theo Van Dinter
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 01:41:33AM -0500, Phil Barnett wrote: So, does that mean that sa_update brings the update to my machine and then I have to do something else or that I have to run sa_update to bring them and install them? That's basically the same thing. man sa-update and reading

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

2006-12-31 Thread Phil Barnett
On Monday 01 January 2007 01:46, Theo Van Dinter wrote: On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 01:41:33AM -0500, Phil Barnett wrote: So, does that mean that sa_update brings the update to my machine and then I have to do something else or that I have to run sa_update to bring them and install them?