I have two comments. The first being please do not mix bug reports. The original bug report was regarding sa-exim and greylisting. I don't know, that seems fine, I don't use exim so do not know, I never saw that problem.
But this message is a patch for something completely different from the above. It shouldn't be logged with the previous. It is completely different. Please, one thread for each bug. This is a different problem and it should have a different bug ticket. The second comment is about the error: Marco Gaiarin wrote: > One more redirection, by some day, the update script emit: > > http: GET http://daryl.dostech.ca/sa-update/asf/1387911.tar.gz request > failed: 404 Not Found: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> > <html><head> <title>404 Not Found</title> </head><body> <h1>Not Found</h1> > <p>The requested URL /sa-update/asf/1387911.tar.gz was not found on this > server.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.2.6 (Fedora) Server at daryl.dostech.ca > Port 80</address> </body></html> > > generated by sa-update. I have experienced this error from sa-update via cron. I chased through it briefly but did not come to root cause. It is dependent upon outside factors. I am thinking that some mirrors are up to date and others are stale but not sure. But it is an error. It should not be silenced simply by redirecting errors to /dev/null. Instead the root cause of the problem should be addressed and fixed. > - ... > + ... > /dev/null 2>&1 Therefore I am opposed to this patch being included. It doesn't fix the problem but is just ignoring it. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
