On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:35:05 -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht <bradley.giesbre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 1, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > >> On 01/10/10 08:50, Eric Bischoff wrote: >>>> I'd be more pessimistic on this figure. The hash driver seems to >>>> be broken >>>> and I do not think another release should be done while it isn't >>>> fixed. >>>>
Hi there, I just got news from the editor of the french gnu linux magazine, and the november issue will feature an article on Dspam 3.9.1. However, since I didn't know about the issues with the hash driver before sending the article for publication, the described set up will be based on the hash driver. Therefore, I can't but agree that the hash driver issue should be fixed before a stable version is released. Also, somewhere in the documentation is stated that the hash driver is the only fast enough driver to use SPBH. Is that still true ? Thanks, Julien Vehent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Dspam-devel mailing list Dspam-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-devel
