People,
On 2016-05-06 13:10, Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users wrote:
Sam,
On 2016-05-06 02:50, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
You may need to recompile spamdyke-qrv with excessive output and run
it with two "-v" flags to see the details you need. You don't need to
actually instal
Sam,
On 2016-05-06 02:50, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
You may need to recompile spamdyke-qrv with excessive output and run
it with two "-v" flags to see the details you need. You don't need to
actually install that recompiled copy; running it from the build
folder should work just
You may need to recompile spamdyke-qrv with excessive output and run it with
two "-v" flags to see the details you need. You don't need to actually install
that recompiled copy; running it from the build folder should work just as well.
-- Sam Clippinger
On May 5, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Philip R
Sam,
On 2016-05-05 22:27, Sam Clippinger via spamdyke-users wrote:
Very impressive numbers, thanks for sharing those!
No worries - I plan to keep it up so I can see if gradually improving
the spamdyking has an impact - my own previous setup had almost 100%
blocking rate but with some false
Very impressive numbers, thanks for sharing those! Out of curiosity, of the
messages that were delivered, how did you judge if they were spam?
It sounds like the problem is that spamdyke-qrv is accepting messages to
invalid addresses? You can try running spamdyke-qrv manually with the "-v"
fl
People,
On 2016-05-04 19:39, Philip Rhoades via spamdyke-users wrote:
People,
Last year I reported some stats after I had been using SD for about a
month and now I have a second set - unfortunately I forgot to increase
the number of backlogs for logrotate and I lost a few months of data
to com
