Could we please schedule a desired date to release the next pre-release
of 3.3.0? Time based releases help us to stay on track.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
good way to query for the age of a domain? Unfortunately
it seems whois is too slow and the text format is non-standard.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
-- 79101 2009/09/14 22:13:02 spam-bayes-net-wt-jp1.log
-rw-r--r-- 311 2009/09/14 22:23:08 spam-bayes-net-wt-jp2.log
One day from the deadline for spamassassin-3.3.0 scoring and we
currently have only three people reporting.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
for this one-time
rescoring masscheck.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
If you want to participate in nightly masscheck you should request your
own account.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/16/2009 11:25 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
excellent. That's 2 people who could do with an extension, then!
Could we state with clarity the new deadline? I might have other people
with data depending on the extended deadline.
be whitelisted from PSBL by either listing itself in DNSWL,
or letting us know to check it by SPF or DKIM.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/16/2009 11:47 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/04/2009 10:51 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
OK, if you're planning to send us mass-check logs for the
3.3.0 rescoring, now's the time!
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RescoreDetails has all the details.
cheers!
--j.
-rw-r--r-- 174911850 2009
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated for
years?
Warren
On 09/23/2009 12:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/23/2009 12:36 PM, Jose Luis Marin Perez wrote:
3. Add SARE rules
Why is anyone still using SARE rules when they haven't been updated
for years?
Because they still get hits?
I get fairly good
On 09/26/2009 06:25 AM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 12:10 -0500, Rich Graves wrote:
The bigger picture: I'm working on some ISP/.edu phishing rules
inspired by the old 419 rules... lots of words and short phrases
indicating an attempt to get our account information (either
?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/28/2009 01:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
On 07/09/2009 09:57 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth I'm now ahead of Barracuda on Jeff Makey's blacklist
comparison chart. Not a scientific comparison but it's about all there
is to compare blacklists. Now only
during
masschecks? If not then the two largest servers doing masschecks could
probably use rsync access to your data.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
I think I have a lot of capacity. I suppose we'll see. I should be able
to handle the load. If not then I'll find out.
BTW - if JEF were included
referring to the same thing. Perhaps we should call it JMF
to avoid confusion?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/28/2009 06:53 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/28/2009 01:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd be interested in how well it worked. Is there anything I need to do
to help?
http://wiki.junkemailfilter.com/index.php/Spam_DNS_Lists
Could you provide a URL redirector
so, but I think it is only to stop testing
rules if the score goes beyond a certain point. Please file a separate
bug for this if it is important to you.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
it is a lot more certain
than a mere whitelist, having done cryptographic checking on the DKIM
signature to verify that the domain is both known non-spammer and it is
not spoofed.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/29/2009 10:23 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL Yellow
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BR Brown
I'm willing go go with whatever name works better for the community. I
will change my wiki to be consistent.
Hi Marc,
I appreciate your desire for
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_WL White
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_YL
senders?
I'd attach it to mail but it might get caught in the spam filter...
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/29/2009 12:50 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:45 PM, Henrik K wrote:
It seems that people have already been using the rules copied from your
site. It will be confusing to them if we change the official name. Some
will accidentally have your lists twice.
RCVD_HOSTKARMA_BL Black
old JMF rules. I
will decide later after we hear more opinions.
http://hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com/
Will this be a working redirector in the near future? There is no point
in naming it HOSTKARMA if none of the URL's have hostkarma in their name.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/30/2009 12:18 AM, R-Elists wrote:
Marc,
Could you please decide between the existing JMF rule names
or the above proposed HOSTKARMA names? It seems opinions are
split here.
Warren
warren,
marc already decided once, please dont give more choices...
you should have thought that
weight than arguing about
trivial naming or BL colours
These are good questions. I am only proposing at this point putting
this DNSBL into the sandbox so it can be tested against the corpa and we
can get some real statistics.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 09/30/2009 12:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have a lot of mighty servers set up ad have servers at 4 locations. I
have 50mb bought and using about 30 of it now. I am not sure what it
takes to support a default SA inclusion. Does anyone know if what I
described sounds like it is enough?
You
people are interested in testing?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
Last night's masscheck. 63243 out of 124241 spam hits T_CN_URL, nearly 51%.
7263 T_CN_URL hits in 15517 spam corpus
7200 T_CN_8_URL hits in 15517 spam corpus
Does this make any sense? This is funny. Could someone add this rule
to the sandbox? I'm just curious.
Warren Togami
wtog
On 10/01/2009 12:42 PM, jdow wrote:
From: Marc Perkel m...@perkel.com
Sent: Wednesday, 2009/September/30 16:41
Blaine Fleming wrote: Marc Perkel wrote:
I like it.
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YL
RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BR
Let's go with it.
Marc, have you updated
On 10/01/2009 01:05 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, jdow wrote:
From: John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org
Yours may still hit .cn in the path part. May I suggest:
m;^https?://[^/?]+\.cn\b;
Regardless of their correctness, would you care to expound on the success
of these two rules,
On 10/01/2009 01:16 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/01/2009 01:05 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, jdow wrote:
From: John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org
Yours may still hit .cn in the path part. May I suggest:
m;^https?://[^/?]+\.cn\b;
Regardless of their correctness, would you care
rule on my own corpus I see it is
missing some obvious Asian addresses. This page reveals that the regex
is out of date. Does there exist a good automated way to convert many
CIDR ranges to a single regex?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
Here's HOWTO. The documentation is a bit confusing. I'm working on a
much simpler version of this.
What distro do you use?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/01/2009 02:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
The Oddity I was pointing out at the beginning of the thread is not
prevalence of .cn URI's, but rather most of them appear to be exactly
8 characters long. Could someone please commit my T_CN_8_URL rule
On 10/03/2009 05:08 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/01/2009 02:36 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
The Oddity I was pointing out at the beginning of the thread is not
prevalence of .cn URI's, but rather most of them
On 10/03/2009 07:50 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
8 is *extremely* important in Chinese culture. When running these
tests, make sure that there is a good quantity of .cn TLD URIs in the
ham before drawing any conclusions.
Right, in adding things to the sandbox it does not necessarily mean I
suggest
On 10/03/2009 07:11 PM, John Hardin wrote:
[^./]{8}\.cn
Actually, doesn't this match other characters that shouldn't be in a
domain name?
...is _anything_ (apart from periods) excluded from domain names these
days? :)
Changed to \w{8} for testing. Can you provide examples of needing more
On 10/04/2009 12:21 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/03/2009 07:50 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
8 is *extremely* important in Chinese culture. When running these
tests, make sure that there is a good quantity of .cn TLD URIs in the
ham before drawing any
On 10/04/2009 04:07 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
The Oddity I was pointing out at the beginning of the thread is not
prevalence of .cn URI's, but rather most of them appear to be exactly
8 characters long.
Are there any other .cn domain formats (like {8
http://spameatingmonkey.com
Anyone have any experience using these DNSBL and URIBL's?
Is anyone from this site on this list?
I wonder if we should add these rules to the sandbox for masschecks as well.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
to
test it properly.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/05/2009 11:27 AM, John Hardin wrote:
Warren:
I guess that's an argument against anchoring CN_EIGHT at the beginning
of the URI...
I wasn't the one that suggested anchoring.
Did the old rule decode %2E%63%6E as .cn though?
Warren
On 10/05/2009 02:30 PM, René Berber wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
I heard an interesting story from a friend who was working in Mexico for
the past few months. Apparently in some Latin American countries,
uppercase legitimate person-to-person e-mail is common because it is
seen as a sign
hour. (I know you do, Dan, this goes out to
everyone reading this post.)
guenther
They are really being generated every 4 hours when new patterns can be
tested for safety only during the nightly masscheck?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/05/2009 03:52 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 15:44 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
On 10/05/2009 02:53 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Well, the Sought rule-set (and thus Fraud sub-set) is being re-generated
every 4 hours -- with an exception of night-time, UTC
OK... asking again, it seems more likely the commonality in people who
write mail in all caps is being extremely untechnical, barely able to
type, or working for the government.
Warren
Please excuse me, I used faulty logic.
I wasn't asking you anything further. I meant I asked this friend for
more details and it seems to be non-technical users is the most likely
type of people to type legitimate mail in all caps.
Warren
On 10/04/2009 09:32 PM, Blaine Fleming wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Warren Togami wrote:
http://spameatingmonkey.com
Anyone have any experience using these DNSBL and URIBL's?
Is anyone from this site on this list?
I wonder if we should add these rules to the sandbox
On 10/06/2009 11:15 PM, Blaine Fleming wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
I'll add your existing rules to the Sandbox for testing.
Thank you!
But have you considered putting all the DNSBL's and URIBL's into
aggregated zones so you can cut down on redundant queries?
Actually, the uri red list
to proxy whois lookups to bypass
rate limits should that become necessary.
Opinions of this proposal?
Is anyone from PSBL, HOSTKARMA, or SEM interested?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/07/2009 11:27 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
We are working on getting .CN zone access. Thats the only way to speed
things up. The only challenging part is to get a copy of the CN zone
just like we get copy's of other ccTLD/gTLD's.
OK, I was under the impression that it was impossible to
On 10/07/2009 03:29 PM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
The other part of the problem is determining the age of a domain. The
only way to do that absent a registrar feed is to do a whois query,
which may or may not return the data you need, and which is considered
abusive when
Could you ask them to provide ham samples for the automated masschecks?
We currently have none in the corpus so we cannot test the safety of
rules against Chinese language mail.
Warren
http://spameatingmonkey.com/usage.html
Are these URI rules really valid syntax? They don't look right, and
spamassassin lint rejects them.
Warren
On 10/09/2009 10:11 PM, MySQL Student wrote:
Hi,
Could you ask them to provide ham samples for the automated masschecks?
We currently have none in the corpus so we cannot test the safety of rules
against Chinese language mail.
Yes, I know how important that is. I recall you mentioning that
On 10/10/2009 11:27 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm thinking about starting a service to filter spam on outgoing email.
I was wondering if anyone has any experience doing this and has some
advice on how to do it. These customers will be businesses, not freemail
customers, and one of the only real
does it have a high score generated by the GA?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
can see how well those rules worked for the past week and 2nd week.
Those counts are closer to current results.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
% 4.2489% 0.91 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
0.0281% 6.9639% 0.90 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED
0.1147% 3.9169% 0.81 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
0.1982% 6.4736% 0.78 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
% 0.0227% 0.52 URIBL_RHS_DOB
0.4689% 0.2365% 0.51 URIBL_GREY
0.0304% 0.0157% 0.50 URIBL_RED
SEM_URIRED has a few obvious FP's on facebook, newegg and various bank
mail. No time to look further at the moment.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/10/2009 09:10 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On søn 11 okt 2009 02:31:58 CEST, John Rudd wrote
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 16:44, Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
Given that zen.spamhaus.org is a combination of XBL and PBL, this
data seems to confirm the good reputation of Spamhaus.
Er
On 10/11/2009 02:07 AM, jdow wrote:
I have to admire one thing about spammers. They respond very rapidly to
threats to their ability to break through spam protection software. You
became curious and mentioned this on the date above. Spammers are already
using 7 character names.cn.
{^_-}
Yes,
to write some kind of auth message
in the Received line if you had authenticated?
Does spamassassin and masscheck have any way to recognize such headers
to know to skip that line for rule checks?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/11/2009 09:04 AM, mouss wrote:
postfix does so if you authenticated and you have
smtpd_sasl_authenticated_header = yes
Thanks! This is exactly what I needed to fix my problem.
Warren
On 10/12/2009 09:18 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
For what it's worth there are really only 3 serious white lists on the
planet. I'm surprised no one is
testing the emailreg list. There are dozens of black lists. Doing white
lists is actually easier than doing
black lists because there are thousands of
comparing?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
unsubscribe spam from
constantcontact.com or tell them what addresses were being sent. They
deserve a hurt reputation if they have a poor anti-spam policy.
Unsubscribing only the offending addresses only artificially hides the
problem from the statistical analysis without solving it.
Warren Togami
/20091017-r826198-n/T_RCVD_IN_UBL/detail
Tested the Lashback UBL in the Saturday masscheck. 7.9% of spam and
2.3% ham! This blacklist in its current form is dangerous and should
not be used.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
lower?
KHOP rules contained some useful ideas, but many appeared to be suspect
to me so I didn't use it myself. They need to be tested in nightly
masscheck to determine their true safety and efficacy.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 10/29/2009 11:33 AM, Adam Katz wrote:
There are other channels of note, namely 2tld, sought, and my own.
I've got a list of channels I recommend on my site (see my sig).
How is your registration to be able to commit your rules to masscheck
going? I personally wouldn't be comfortable
On 11/10/2009 10:59 PM, Alex wrote:
This just becomes increasingly important when management drops an
email in the Put Spam Here folder for training that clearly isn't
spam, but something they've subscribed to, like a newsletter. For the
email that even I question sometimes, I'd like to be able
On 11/12/2009 10:50 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 12-Nov-2009, at 20:41, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the best stoping
SPAM, and we should look for L7 solution such as Bayes.
I reject the notion that spam is a L7 problem.
It is more
:
Is Spamcop seriously this bad? It consistently has shown a high false
positive rates in these past weeks. Was it safer than this in the past
to warrant the current high score in spamassassin-3.2.5?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 11/15/2009 11:00 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results
On 11/15/2009 03:36 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL *
12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL
31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2
80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79
On 11/16/2009 03:04 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone had mentioned this to ebay:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 09 16:42:23 GMT-0700
will hit INVALID_DATE.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:10:44 -0700 (GMT)
This ebay mail to me didn't hit INVALID_DATE.
Warren
.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 11/23/2009 07:34 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
Unless there are objections, I'm going to add two tests to my sandbox:
RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM, a new (to us) DNSBL populated by the same source as
the original [N]iXhash zone, with results on intra2net that look quite
promising: 72.98:0.12 spam:ham (PSBL has
Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.0-beta1 is now available for testing.
Downloads are available from:
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
9b39e4e4fad09cfe9eff974f3d5a01ea Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-beta1.tar.bz2
530fb1bd28977271f30b348bc2b68db1
://www.emailreg.org/index.cgi?p=usage
(from domain).(ip).resl.emailreg.org
It seems the preferred method of querying includes both From domain and
IP address, which is different from other whitelists. Would we need a
new plugin for spamassassin to query in this fashion?
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 12/13/2009 09:34 PM, Robert Fleming wrote:
Add the following rules to your SpamAssassin configuration
header __RCVD_IN_EMAILREG eval:check_rbl('emailreg-trusted',
'resl.emailreg.org.')
header RCVD_IN_EMAILREG_0 eval:check_rbl_sub('emailreg-trusted',
'127.0.\d+.0')
On 12/14/2009 05:06 AM, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
I'm pretty sure this only queries only by IP address. IP address and
domain name combined can be significantly more fine grained on some
mail providers, so we might be better off waiting until spamassassin
is capable of querying
On 12/09/2009 12:22 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
I strongly believe in time-based goals as being good to keep the project
moving forward. I also believe that 3.3.0 that we have now is of very
high quality, certainly far more than 3.2.5.
For this reason I want to cut a new pre-release of whatever
for January or
February release.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
on manual reports
and manual intervention requires too much effort in the long-term for
any organization, be it company or volunteer run.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
http://tinyurl.com/yd8n96m
All bugs targeted for 3.3.0.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6228
Last bug currently P1 priority and considered a blocker.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 12/17/2009 11:27 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
If whitelists are to be enabled by default, I believe their score should
be moved considerably more toward zero.
/Jason
I don't necessarily disagree with this desire, as now we know the
whitelists actually are making almost zero difference to
the first cut rc1.proposed1 after the
previous discussion. After the 3 day period has passed with no
objections then it will be renamed to rc1 and released.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 12/18/2009 04:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, John Hardin wrote:
We hope to get rule scoring and publication much more automated -
i.e., if a rule in the sandbox works well based on the automated
masschecks, it would be automatically scored and published via sa-update.
3.3.0 will be.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
[DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT - NOT YET RELEASED - DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT]
Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rc1 is now available for testing.
Downloads are available from:
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/
md5sum of archive files
.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 12/18/2009 08:57 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
This will be released if we go three days without an objection as per build/README
procedure. At that point these archives will be renamed to rc1 and the
announcements will go out. Please suggest improvements to this announcement text as well
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20091219-r892451-n/T_RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK/detail
SEMBLACK normally is one of the better performing blacklists, but it
behaved abnormally in this weekly masscheck.
18.85.2.155 is one IP that was listed, but not listed on any other
blacklist. There were many more.
On 12/20/2009 09:20 AM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
More unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent me from building a useful
corpus of ham. Sigh
But otherwise such a good idea
Can you not trust yourself to use your own ham? You don't need to
suspect there might be a few minor things we might want to polish before 3.3.0
final, but otherwise this is VERY CLOSE to what 3.3.0 will be.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
To: users, dev, announce
Subject: ANNOUNCE: Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rc1 available
[DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT - NOT YET RELEASED
Apache SpamAssassin 3.3.0-rc1 is now available for testing.
Downloads are available from
http://people.apache.org/~wtogami/devel/
md5sum of archive files:
41a68daf1bae2ded652a74c77b1fb498 Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.0-rc1.tar.bz2
e5f1498a02b79ead743504e1f4f0fa89
On 12/25/2009 05:36 PM, The Doctor wrote:
t/basic_lint.t /usr/bin/perl: can't resolve symbol
'_Unwind_GetIP'
/usr/bin/perl: can't resolve symbol '_Unwind_GetRegionStart'
/usr/bin/perl: can't resolve symbol '_Unwind_Resume'
/usr/bin/perl: can't resolve symbol
This is a reminder that the 3.3.0 final cut is scheduled for Friday,
January 15th.
http://tinyurl.com/yd8n96m
Please review the bugs. Only priority P1 bugs are considered blockers
for 3.3.0.
Warren Togami
wtog...@redhat.com
On 12/29/2009 07:27 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
+1. I expect
On 01/11/2010 11:07 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
At the suggestion of a local user I ran 'sa-update -D' to bring my
Slackware-12.2 system running SA-3.2.5 up to date. Instead, I just dug
myself a hole and fell in by running the above. Sigh.
What I see as a result is:
[6753] error: check: no
. It's also possible there's some issue with the newer
Perl. SA 3.3.0 should be coming out next week, you may want to wait and
then get that. Or grab the RC (URL is in some recent message by Warren
Togami on this list) and try that.
Kai
Nobody really knows? Who did you ask?
Warren
On 01/17/2010 04:34 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:57 -0500, Casartello, Thomas wrote:
Went back to 3.2.5 and that fixed it...
Thomas,
Please tell Fedora about it / add a bug on Fedora bugzilla.
I'm on Fedora 10 and, since updates dried up since the new year, need to
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
