sa-update question

[Anthony Peacock]

Hi,

Jay Chandler wrote:
> Howdy!
> 
> I've built a channelfile for sa-update, and it appears to work correctly.
> 
> [97849] dbg: channel: attempting channel updates.spamassassin.org
> [97849] dbg: channel: update directory 
> /var/db/spamassassin/3.002003/updates_spamassassin_org
> [97849] dbg: channel: channel cf file 
> /var/db/spamassassin/3.002003/updates_spamassassin_org.cf
> [97849] dbg: channel: channel pre file 
> /var/db/spamassassin/3.002003/updates_spamassassin_org.pre
> [97849] dbg: channel: metadata version = 578932
> 
> However, I don't see any reference to /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/ 
> (the rules directory that MS's implementation of SA uses), and the date 
> on the files within it are all from back when I built the box.
> 
> Is a diff done at some point, or do I need to be referencing 
> /var/db/spamassassin/3.002003 in my MailScanner config?

If your MailScanner is recent enough, you shouldn't need to change 
anything, have a look in MailScanner.conf for "SpamAssassin Local State 
Dir":

"# The rules created by the "sa-update" tool are searched for here.
# This directory contains the 3.001001/updates_spamassassin_org
# directory structure beneath it.
# Only un-comment this setting once you have proved that the sa-update
# cron job has run successfully and has created a directory structure under
# the spamassassin directory within this one and has put some *.cf files in
# there. Otherwise it will ignore all your current rules!
# The default location may be /var/opt on Solaris systems.
SpamAssassin Local State Dir = # /var/lib/spamassassin"

Basically, SA on its own knows to use the newer rules in the /var/lib... 
hierachy over and above any others.  This initially caused problems in 
MailScanner, but Julian very quickly made MailScanner work by default in 
this setup.  Can't remember the version that this changed in, but it was 
a while ago.


-- 
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
WWW:    http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
"A CAT scan should take less time than a PET scan.  For a CAT scan,
  they're only looking for one thing, whereas a PET scan could result in
  a lot of things."    - Carl Princi, 2002/07/19