So why there is an access-file option?
If I would set env vars (like RELAYCLIENT or others) I have to use
/etc/tcp.smtp (or other var specified as param in tcpserver).
I don't understand the need of this option.
d.
2008/10/7 Sam Clippinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This behavior is correct.
Hi all!
I created a bash-script to analyze and clean up my greylist. Maybe
someone needs one which
reports what has been done or just check the greylist without deleting.
I use this one, because a simple find over 90 Domains and 2k
Mailaccounts caused high
server load, this step-by-step
The access-file option exists for several reasons. While it's true
tcpserver uses that file and sets the environment variables, not
everyone uses tcpserver (most notably, Plesk uses xinetd instead). Some
administrators may have complex configurations that need to use
multiple/different files
A little difference to my system is that he'd been told that the
segfaults occur in libc-2.3.6.so, but also
0-Addresses. Do you think it's the same bug he hits, does it help us
with my server? Looking forward
to getting this bug! :-)
Sam Clippinger schrieb:
Without more information, I would
4.0.5beta4 is now running on my system :)
Sam Clippinger schrieb:
The reference to libc-2.3.6.so just means that spamdyke is crashing
while calling a library function. The segfault message would probably
include the name of the function if libc had been compiled with
debugging symbols
Hi!
I use spamdyke Debian packages:
http://peter.nameservice.mobi/download/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/spamdyke/
Maybe you can try these deb package, when you have trouble with your
spamdyke?
- Peter
Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 15:07 -0300 schrieb Thiago Cesar:
Hi for all, Iam
where can i get this script?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Felix Buenemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07.10.2008 20:41 Uhr, Arthur Girardi wrote:
Hi Felix,
Making use of the opportunity, I'd like to suggest you changing line
25 of your script where it reads:
if( m/spamdyke/ ){
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Eric Shubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Felix Buenemann wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Arthur and Bgs in that SPF is a smarter thing to check,
because it can be done without checking headers and currently has a much
wider disribution base.
IMHO the only way to
Well, not necessarily. At the moment, spamdyke is only vulnerable to a
very small part of the DNS spoofing attack. Most of the danger Dan
Kaminsky discovered comes from caching -- a vulnerable host could cache
incorrect DNS data sent by the attacker. spamdyke doesn't cache DNS
information,
