You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org> on 2004/09/24 10:37:05 UTC
FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
I've gotten a Makefile mostly tuned for sa3, based on the FreeBSD port
makefile for 2.64. I've added most of the dependencies, but FreeBSD
doesn't have ports for Net::SMTP or IP::Country::Fast, so those two
features can't be auto-installed unless the ports maintainer comes up with
them.
I'm also not *quite* sure of the syntax for requiring a specific *version*
of a perl module from within the ports tree.
I've added an optional WITH_SSL=yes define that will auto-ssl-ify things.
Finally, there's a few prompts that as-of-yet cannot be bypassed, I've
opened a bug on those.
So, suffice it to say it should be a while before we see this in the ports
tree. I'm going to send my changes along to perl@freebsd.org and see what
they think.
-Dan
--
"Goodbye my peoples. I'll miss each one of you. Sniff-Sniff I now know
the true meaning of love. Thank you Sniff-Sniff. You are all in my
heart."
-Chris D.
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by Mathieu Arnold <ma...@FreeBSD.org>.
+-le 25/09/2004 13:21 -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin écrivait :
| On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
|
| Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast
| module? I can create it if you like.
|
| (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00
| is there one?)
I can add it, not a problem, I'll have a look at this on Monday.
| A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be
| useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support.
SSL is the only thing you need to have to get compiled in, so I'll had some
kind of WITH_SSL thing.
Database support is enabled if you enable it in the config, and if you want
to enable it, you're surely already have DBI and the appropriate DBD modules,
and I'm not going to add cases for all DBD:: Modules we have in the tree.
| -Dan
|
|> +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait :
|> | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold
|> | <ma...@mat.cc> wrote:
|> |
|> |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
|> |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
|> |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
|> |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by
|> |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
|> |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
|> |>
|> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will
|> |> be the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to
|> |> have SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
|> |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with
|> |> the patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264
|> |> for them to update/patch/whatever.
|> |
|> | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not
|> | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
|> | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
|> | and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
|>
|> I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed
|> for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under
|> discussion.
|>
|> --
|> Mathieu Arnold
|>
|
| --
|
| "We need another cat. This one's retarded."
|
| -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM)
|
| --------Dan Mahoney--------
| Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
| Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
| ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
| Site: http://www.gushi.org
| ---------------------------
--
Mathieu Arnold
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org>.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:21:19PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>
>> Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast
>> module? I can create it if you like.
>>
>> (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00
>> is there one?)
>>
>> A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be
>> useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support.
>>
>
> guys -- bear in mind that IP:C:F is an optional
> module, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
I know, but it should be there for the sake of completeness. I read that
the country filters are off by default, how does one turn them on?
-Dan
>
> --j.
>
>>
>>> +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley ?crivait :
>>> | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold
>>> | <ma...@mat.cc> wrote:
>>> |
>>> |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
>>> |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
>>> |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
>>> |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by
>>> |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
>>> |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
>>> |>
>>> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will
>>> be
>>> |> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to
>>> have
>>> |> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
>>> |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with
>>> the
>>> |> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for
>>> them
>>> |> to update/patch/whatever.
>>> |
>>> | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not
>>> | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
>>> | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
>>> | and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
>>>
>>> I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed
>>> for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mathieu Arnold
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "We need another cat. This one's retarded."
>>
>> -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM)
>>
>> --------Dan Mahoney--------
>> Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
>> Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
>> ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
>> Site: http://www.gushi.org
>> ---------------------------
>
--
"Hey, call me anything you like. I'm Dan to my friends, gushi to my
close friends, 'hey, you' to my girlfriend, 'mrrow?' to my cat, and 'why
the hell is the router on fire?' to my job.
-Dan Mahoney
12/2/02
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org>.
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast
module? I can create it if you like.
(I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00
is there one?)
A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be
useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support.
-Dan
> +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait :
> | --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold
> | <ma...@mat.cc> wrote:
> |
> |> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
> |>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
> |>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
> |>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by
> |>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
> |>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
> |>
> |> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be
> |> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have
> |> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
> |> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the
> |> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them
> |> to update/patch/whatever.
> |
> | That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not
> | a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
> | Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
> | and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
>
> I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed
> for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under
> discussion.
>
> --
> Mathieu Arnold
>
--
"We need another cat. This one's retarded."
-Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM)
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by Mathieu Arnold <ma...@FreeBSD.org>.
+-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait :
| --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold
| <ma...@mat.cc> wrote:
|
|> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
|>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
|>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
|>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by
|>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
|>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
|>
|> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be
|> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have
|> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
|> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the
|> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them
|> to update/patch/whatever.
|
| That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not
| a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
| Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
| and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed
for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under
discussion.
--
Mathieu Arnold
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by Pat Lashley <pa...@volant.org>.
--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <ma...@mat.cc> wrote:
> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by
>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still
>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
>
> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be
> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have
> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the
> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them
> to update/patch/whatever.
That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not
a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
-Pat
Windows, pop3proxy, Spamassassin v. 3.0.0
Posted by Paolo Zucchia <pz...@libero.it>.
Hi!
I'm trying to use pop3proxy with SA3, but I cannot see the x-spam headers.
Here is some more info.
I did a clean install of Activestate Perl 5.8.4.810 and SA3, following
instructions at http://www.openhandhome.com/howtosa300.html .
Spamassassin works: if I fire up a command prompt and type
CMD> spamassassin.bat < mymessage.txt > output.txt
the message is correctly parsed and tagged.
I then installed pop3proxy from http://mcd.perlmonk.org/pop3proxy/ and
changed it according to
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CantLocateNoMailAudit . In particular, I
changed line 857 from
my $message = Mail::SpamAssassin::NoMailAudit->new(data => \@mail,
to
my $message = $spamtest->parse( \@mail,
leaving the rest unchanged.
Pop3proxy works, i.e. I can retrieve the mail using my mail client (Mozilla
1.8a3). If I look at the pop3proxy.log , all messages are correctly
identified as ham or spam. However, pop3proxy spits out the unprocessed
message.
My local.cf adds a custom header: this appears in the output file I get from
spamassassin.bat. I added
print $message->get_all_headers();
in my pop3proxy.pl, right after
$status->rewrite_mail() unless $respect_byte_count;
and, as a result, I can see all x-spam headers, including my custom header,
in the log file. However, I cannot see the headers in my client.
I used to run SA 2.63 on perl 5.6.1 with no problems at all.
Any suggestions?
Thanks and regards
-Paolo
Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)
Posted by "Jack L. Stone" <ja...@sage-american.com>.
At 04:37 AM 9.24.2004 -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>I've gotten a Makefile mostly tuned for sa3, based on the FreeBSD port
>makefile for 2.64. I've added most of the dependencies, but FreeBSD
>doesn't have ports for Net::SMTP or IP::Country::Fast, so those two
>features can't be auto-installed unless the ports maintainer comes up with
>them.
>
>I'm also not *quite* sure of the syntax for requiring a specific *version*
>of a perl module from within the ports tree.
>
>I've added an optional WITH_SSL=yes define that will auto-ssl-ify things.
>
>Finally, there's a few prompts that as-of-yet cannot be bypassed, I've
>opened a bug on those.
>
>So, suffice it to say it should be a while before we see this in the ports
>tree. I'm going to send my changes along to perl@freebsd.org and see what
>they think.
>
>-Dan
>
>
>--
>
>"Goodbye my peoples. I'll miss each one of you. Sniff-Sniff I now know
>the true meaning of love. Thank you Sniff-Sniff. You are all in my
>heart."
>
>-Chris D.
>
Dan: Yes, before asking my question, I did notice the ports were frozen & I
also "played" with the 2.64 port without luck too. But, thought maybe
someone else had some sort of time estimate for the new port.
Guess we'll have to just wait patiently although that's not easy.
Many thanks for the responses!
Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
Administrator
Sage American
http://www.sage-american.com
jacks@sage-american.com