[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RFS: spampd 2.20-7 SpamAssassin based spam detection smtp proxy daemon



Hi.

As my usual sponsor for this package is on holiday, I hereby look for another sponsor for an update of one of my packages: spampd.

Changes file:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sat,  1 Jan 2005 18:15:47 +0100
Source: spampd
Binary: spampd
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.20-7
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de>
Changed-By: Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de>
Description:
 spampd     - a spamassassin based SMTP/LMTP proxy daemon
Closes: 285531
Changes:
 spampd (2.20-7) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Added patch which allows addition of Envelope-To and Envelope-From
     headers before passing the message to SpamAssassin (closes: #285531)
   * Remove spampd user only when the package is purged, not when removed
   * Fix a small typo (nonexistent vs. nonexistant)
   * Don't redirect any output (stdout/stderr) from adduser in postinst
     script. Use --quiet instead
   * Remove spampd.orig (is sometimes created by the dpatch scripts)
     in the clean target
Files:
 e1dcdc1dc973a6b692a119941e04388e 908 mail optional spampd_2.20-7.dsc
 ee710f45df348049889240c5e6c9dd4c 9179 mail optional spampd_2.20-7.diff.gz
 b2ed2b0407a559a6eb34445b0c5249e0 40762 mail optional spampd_2.20-7_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQddnxQWEqLhWCH5MAQKVugf/Z/Xaftv3fuyUcrE9Q81Z2ar/3cCf1PAO
INA1VRykqbWX93NgGbHACTjU4vHab/nT/PPVViUxfHSoDGrH+kIu7Mkk1vNIdc0P
cv8YuYCdzoA4KwQbliLwQQjxIySEF/BKdwV+ChO+ex7XgfBiGD24JXCeIRbxsX+G
9+rSMG8xgJcN5Ykh5nhziN4qX2aX+6/G36LU5xDKbgPkhR+MprNekypj3kTTPdXJ
odJPQ9hnZYhQ9OZQ+pe1lYoKQtuMOM5S2Y4vEe2G8f+SPl9DW071YSJIreLXzKvE
+dH70LN+dq6WQ+rdnMRz2qhq6odf/TGZF2h2gtED2fDzWk9Ckz8FnA==
=cBTR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The package is available for download at http://incase.de/debian (apt-get'able at "deb http://incase.de/debian ./").

Regards,
Sven



Reply to: