spamassassin Y2010 bug
jeffrey at goldmark.org
Sat Jan 2 23:28:47 UTC 2010
On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:45 AM, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:15:25 +0000
> Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>> However, neither of these have been accepted by the
>> p5-Mail-SpamAssassin port maintainer.
> It's not really a one-size fits all problem - it depends on which
> channels you use and whether you want sa-compile (which isn't
> supported by either script quoted).
Of course both of these scripts could be easily modified to meet local needs. The second script already had some customization hooks built in.
> sa-update is very cheap to run - if there's no update it's just a dns
> lookup. If you're using the auto-generated "sought" rules you may wish
> to update several times a day. OTOH sa-compile is very cpu intensive,
> and once a day may be too much.
That is all true. If you are maintaining a high traffic site (for which sa-compile would be useful) then you will probably be rolling your own maintenance scripts anyway. But none of this is not a reason to not include something like these in the SA port.
Alternatively, if someone were sufficiently motived they could put together an SA utilities port that installs a number of maintenance scripts which a user can enable.
> One other thing is that just I always use sa-update with
> --gpghomedir. If you use the default you loose any third-party public
> keys each time the SA port is reinstalled.
That is useful to know.
Thank you both for your help on getting me to maintain my system better.
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
More information about the freebsd-questions