Thanks Matt,
Yeah, before I upgraded (I had this problem and then decided to try to upgrade, thinking that might clear it up), I cleared the rules directories it was using (/etc/mail/spamassassin & /usr/share/spamassassin). Then the rules that showed up there are only the ones from the install -- including local.cf.
And, no, I'm not editing anything between runs of --lint. It just cycles to the next "error" (seemingly).
The confusing thing is that SA and MailScanner are still working despite the syntax errors. I'm sure that the rules it's complaining about aren't firing, but some others must be.
I'm wondering, at this point, how much a pain it would be to uninstall SA and reinstall fresh?? Is that even advisable? Nervous about any change now, as we only have the one server, so there's no test bed to speak of.
We're using a machine running Ensim Pro 4.0 (a control panel setup for managing multiple domains). And my setup -- as far as I've been able to configure it -- is site-wide. Still waiting for that O'Reilly SpamAssassin book to be released!
Thanks again,
Andy Norris
At 04:24 pm 2004-07-08, Matt Kettler wrote:
At 05:00 PM 7/8/2004, Andy Norris wrote:Is there a better version of the rules out there I should grab or is there a SA newbie trick I don't know as far as troubleshooting the rules? I'm looking for the cause of the syntax errors (am a pretty proficient Perl programmer), but I cannot find anything wrong in the file it lists, and each time I run the command to lint, it moves to the next error, rather than staying on the same error long enough for me to troubleshoot and fix it
That shouldn't happen. The same configfiles should ALWAYS produce the exact same output from spamassassin --lint.
Is there any chance something is being edited between runs?
From the looks of things, SA's parser is heavily confused, and the file and rule it's complaining about might not be the true cause of the problem.
Have you tried yanking your local.cf out temporarily to see if it clears up?
Have you made sure the .cf files are the same as the ones in the tarball (except changes to the require_version line and the comments about where local.cf resides)?
