Re: Spamassassin 3.0 not in testing

Andreas Barth wrote: > * Travis Crump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041207 21:30]: >> MrVanes wrote: >> >I've been watching the spamassassin package page > > The current concerns are that the maintainer wrote in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/11/msg00403.html that he > doesn't consider the cu

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 not in testing

* Travis Crump ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041207 21:30]: > MrVanes wrote: > >I've been watching the spamassassin package page > >(http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html) for a while now, hoping > >for spamassassin 3.0 to enter testing but it's being held (for 23 days) by > >some 'aba'. > [...

Re: Spamassassin 3.0 not in testing

MrVanes wrote: Hi, I've been watching the spamassassin package page (http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html) for a while now, hoping for spamassassin 3.0 to enter testing but it's being held (for 23 days) by some 'aba'. SA has no dependancies (as far as I can see) that need to be fulfill

Spamassassin 3.0 not in testing

Hi, I've been watching the spamassassin package page (http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html) for a while now, hoping for spamassassin 3.0 to enter testing but it's being held (for 23 days) by some 'aba'. SA has no dependancies (as far as I can see) that need to be fulfilled before ent