Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>
> Wow. 164+ SBU? I think that sets the record. It may be more than all
> of the rest of BLFS combined.
>
LOL, yes I do believe it takes the cake.
I think it might be time to point to make a big note about rpm2tgz with
cpio as a dep and we'll cover the binary install
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>DJ Lucas wrote:
>>>real725m59.836s
>>>user559m34.396s
>>>sys 53m8.695s
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] src680-m108]#
>>what is your binutils time?
> 265 Seconds
Wow. 164+ SBU? I think that sets the record. It may be more than all
of the rest of BLFS
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>
>>real725m59.836s
>>user559m34.396s
>>sys 53m8.695s
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] src680-m108]#
>>
>>WOW!
>>
>>Finally got it in a single pass.
>
>
> Great! BTW, what is your binutils time?
>
> -- Bruce
Actually I don't have one for the bleeding e
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> real725m59.836s
> user559m34.396s
> sys 53m8.695s
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src680-m108]#
>
> WOW!
>
> Finally got it in a single pass.
Great! BTW, what is your binutils time?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linux
Declan Moriarty wrote:
>
> Further, do not forget the available adjustments and neuclear options
> available for bayes (man sa-learn)
>
> You can forget the learning with spamassassin --forget
>
This is what I needed. But just icking the cache files seems to have
worked. :-) And the 70 rule
>
> On 6/9/05, Stef Bon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Are this realy the only thing you have to do? NO patches ??
>
> If it is this easy I will try to compile it too.
>
real725m59.836s
user559m34.396s
sys 53m8.695s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src680-m108]#
WOW!
Finally got it
Recently, Somebody Somewhere wrote these words
> Hi Declan, Did you see this on BLFS Dev?
Nope, and thenks for forwarding it. I'm not on blfs-dev
> >>
> >>> may I suggest you add the ruleset 70_sare_spoof.cf to trusted
> >>> rulesets on your spamassassin installation, as that will catch the
> >>>
