Axel.Thimm at ATrpms
Dec 13, 2007, 8:48 AM
Post #2 of 2
(258 views)
Permalink
|
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:59:12AM -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
>
> Axel,
> What is the difference between your version of spamassassin and the
> standard Fedora version? Both appear to be based on version 3.2.3 of
> the code?
There are some kerberos fixes and some fuller set of dependencies.
> Part of the reason I am asking is that ever since I have upgraded from
> FC6 (with spamassassin-3.1.9-1.fc6) to FC8 (with
> spamassassin-3.2.3-2.fc8), spamassassin has effectively stopped
> working for me, giving both spam and non-spam alike scores of zero.
> This is really annoying since I am now flooded by spam and was
> interested whether your version (intentionally or not) fixes this
> problem.
>
> Note that the same bug seems to have been reported on bugzilla
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=392851) where some of the
> respondents try to shift the blame to atrpms, presumably because the
> original poster is a heavy atrpms user and the maintainers are not
> able to reproduce the bug on their own non-atrpms system.
I'm also not able to reproduce it on an ATrpms system.
> While I'm not at all sure how any of the atrpms would affect
> spamassassin, I am curious since I too use atrpms. The only
> seemingly mail-related atrpms that I have installed are:
> razor-agents
> perl-Mail-DomainKeys
> DCC
> perl-Mail-DKIM
Since the OP checked that a pure non-ATrpms system exhibits the same
behaviour I wouldn't track any of these. I also can't think of any
that would break spamassassin in the mentioned way.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
|
