On Saturday 06 November 2004 11:53 pm, Matt Kettler wrote: > At 03:42 PM 11/6/2004 -0600, Chris wrote: > >I run a single user system. 2.63 is working so well, I'd say I have a > >99.99+ rate of catching spam with very, very few FP's or FN's. I > > haven't seen either in weeks. Running with network tests and SURBL's > > with a few rulesets thrown in. Would there be any advantage at all to > > upgrading other than that I'd be running the latest version? > > If 2.63 is working well for you, you probably don't need to upgrade to > 3.01 right away. > > However, I would at least upgrade to 2.64 ASAP... 2.63 is vulnerable to a > DoS attack from being fed a malformed message.
Ok, just upgraded to 3.0.1. The upgrade seemed to be as easy as falling off a log using CPAN in webmin, however, as usual, I have a few questions. 1. When running the perl script I use to report spam to DCC, Pyzor and razor I see the following: debug: plugin: Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::URIDNSBL=HASH(0x8de4adc) inhibited further callbacks What specifically is this telling me? 2. Running --lint I get the following: warning: score set for non-existent rule FREE_LEADS warning: score set for non-existent rule US_DOLLARS_2 warning: score set for non-existent rule RATWARE_EVAMAIL lint: 637 issues detected. please rerun with debug enabled for more information I'll have to assume that the above shows I have to remove some rules? 3. I assume I have to remove the mail::spamassassin::spamcopuri module? Other than that I'm pretty happy. I do notice that a bit more memory is used but I get around that by stopping and restarting spamd every hour. -- Chris Registered Linux User 283774 http://counter.li.org 2:33pm up 3 days, 18:58, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.32, 0.41 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Whatever you may be sure of, be sure of this: that you are dreadfully like other people. -- James Russell Lowell, "My Study Windows" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
