I believe you will find notes in the installation readmes regarding
solaris in that you must include ABI=32 into the configure string
./configure ABI=32 --prefix=
Bill
Cocoon wrote:
Hello List,
I want to compile the new clamav version 0.85.1 on a solaris 8 system
Whit the command
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
Maybe even do a reverse check to see if there's a mail server on the
sending system...how many systems would break doing a check like that?
The sending server isn't guaranteed to be a MX, so any DNS MX or reverse
connection tests would fail.
But
Matt Fretwell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can standardize the set of rules and protocols required for an MTA
to accept an email, then spam will reduce. Either that or we need to
build a better mousetrap. This is jut my $0.02.
What time is the next rocketship to this planet you
Steffen Winther Soerensen wrote:
This seems more like a discussion for another mailing list or a Usenet
group on MTAs/SMTP IMHO
I don't disagree... are there any good ones for SPF or similar debates?
I do think -- much as you'd find in the Amavisd list -- that these
issues do tend to intersect
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 17, 2005, at 3:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Damian Menscher wrote:
Would the person who implements this do me a favor and make the virus
pretend to be a viagra spam? If we format the hard drives of people
that buy from spammers, and the
Matt Fretwell wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, a sending MTA should never have its smtp port closed unless
it is an end-user.
Once again, a sending server does not have to be a MX. Something within
that domain should be listening on port 25, but not always the machine
which is
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Bill Taroli wrote:
Eric Wheeler wrote:
[...] For email transfer and MTA's alike, putting SPF in DNS to help
authenticate the source is a step in the right direction. If SPF is
a good idea, and it is dns based, then so should forward-and-back
lookups.
I totally
Dennis Peterson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Dennis Peterson wrote:
I guess I'm saying that if I telnet to fw.domain.name on 25, I should
see
something like
220 fw.domain.name ESMTP mail relay.
If it doesn't say that, then it is lying to anyone who
Bart Silverstrim wrote:
On May 17, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Bill Taroli wrote:
Steffen Winther Soerensen wrote:
This seems more like a discussion for another mailing list or a Usenet
group on MTAs/SMTP IMHO
I don't disagree... are there any good ones for SPF or similar
debates? I do think -- much
Brian Read wrote:
Block all mails from dynamic IP.
They are 99,99% spam.
No they aren't that rule causes quite a few of my customers a
headache, as the (linux) mailserver I often install sends the email
direct, irrespective of whether there Ip is dynamic or static.
Some ISPs charge an arm and
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Brian Read wrote:
Block all mails from dynamic IP. They are 99,99% spam.
No they aren't that rule causes quite a few of my customers a
headache, as the (linux) mailserver I often install sends the email
direct, irrespective of whether there Ip is dynamic or static.
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Mark wrote:
I understood your point perfectly. Why upgrade, using
precious time, when another upgrade may be required very shortly,
requiring said time to again be used. I am just pointing out a
pitfall. There is always a good excuse not to do something. It is,
however,
Matt Fretwell wrote:
Bill Taroli wrote:
I completely agree with your point. But taken from a different
perspective, this may be one reason to justify that such a product not
be used in production IT environments. The point should *not* be missed
that something so crucial to one's
One thing I remember finding when I first installed p7 was that the
clamv entry was only included in the @av_scanners_backup list. In order
for it to be considered a primary, it has to be listed in the
@av_scanners list, and I've had it running like that for a long time
without trouble. But
I've had amavisd-new and clamav talking over TCP for several weeks now
without any issues at all.
Hanford, Seth wrote:
I'm using ClamAV 0.67-1, currently using Unix sockets.
I'm not too familiar with UNIX sockets, but I'm comfortable with TCP sockets
and communication. Is clamd any more/less
Perhaps a silly question... if the .ZIP attachment is passworded, how
are the target users supposed to be opening them and getting infected?
Has the password been included in the email in which the .ZIP was attached?
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
So far (I only have two
16 matches
Mail list logo
