Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:45:57 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spamassassin Y2010 bug Message-ID: <20100102144557.5ad217f7@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4B3F46ED.7080100@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <EB178F24-BF6F-4645-AB0F-5A15A2F51736@goldmark.org> <20100101231924.4df469df@gumby.homeunix.com> <35F4927C-D6EA-4C27-B9ED-3E07FFA5FD28@goldmark.org> <4B3F46ED.7080100@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:15:25 +0000 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@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). 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. 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100102144557.5ad217f7>