> I'm a new user (or about to be, hopefully) of SA but I've run into some
> compilation errors that prevent me from installing.  Rather than picking
> through the code, I thought I'd avoid reinventing the wheel and ask here.
> When I run the 'make', I get the following:
> cc: Error: spamd/spamc.c, line 50: In this declaration, "in_addr_t" has no
> ge and has a prior declaration in this scope at line number 572 in file
> typedef unsigned long   in_addr_t;      /* base type for internet address
Don't worry about the warnings. To fix the error, edit spamc.c and right
typedef unsigned long   in_addr_t;      /* base type for internet address */
(you're adding the two lines that start with #).

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C1647C76
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:06:17 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g7T5lcZ00342 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:47:38 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17kI82-0001mr-00; Wed,
    28 Aug 2002 22:46:02 -0700
from 12-248-14-26.client.attbi.com ([12.248.14.26]
    helo=12-248-11-90.client.attbi.com) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
    17kI75-00013x-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
    Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:45:03 -0700
VM 6.96 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Thu Aug 29 11:08:40 2002

DanQ> I think it would make more sense to start Habeas with a less
DanQ> aggressive score (one which will not give spammers a quick path
DanQ> into everyone's inbox) and after we've seen evidence that the
DanQ> system works, then we can increase the magnitude of the score.
Better yet, let the GA figure out the correct score. ;-) That will obviously
take awhile since you'll have to acquire enough messages with it, but it
should give you a good idea if the presence of Habeus headers are good spam
indicators or not.  If they are, my guess is that Habeus will probably not
succeed.
Taking things further off-topic: Does Habeus charge a license fee to
organizations who want to use their copyrighted material or is their sole
revenue stream to come from legal judgements?  On the one hand, if they
charge license fees, I'd worry that when times got tough they'd be somewhat
less critical of organizations we'd call spammers today in order to generate
license fees.  If not, I'd worry the pendulum would swing the other way and
they'd go after legitimate businesses in an attempt to generate more
revenues from judgements and/or out of court settlements.  Either way, it
seems like they have an interesting tightrope to walk.
--
Skip Montanaro
skip@pobox.com
consulting: http://manatee.mojam.com/~skip/resume.html
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
Spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk