Hi.
Good comment about the Binary v Source - thats actually the strength of
this recipe as I a see it, it blends source packages and provides a neat
rpm install
The challenge is not so much the disk space as the memory requirement to
compile clam on the machine once the machine is deployed - man
Thanks - looks good, good price ...
Their distributions look up to the minute too - will give one of these a
shot.
David Bray
http://www.brayworth.com.au
da...@brayworth.com.au
On 1/05/2011 8:37 PM, Postmaster wrote:
Ref VMs try linode.com
Regards
Alex
Just to throw my 2-cents worth in here...
Binary packages are fine in a well-controlled environment, but source
packages offer far more flexibility -- especially if the Makefiles are
sophisticated enough to recognize advanced features and take advantage
of them (without REQUIRING them). And
Ref VMs try linode.com
Regards
Alex
On 01/05/2011 06:12, David Bray wrote:
I joined the Devel list as suggested, will look to what I can do there
With the VM's - who sells cheap VM's with Swap, I'm using vpslink, no
swap but ... only 512M - yes - M not k, used to have an XT with 512k,
I see, not just a VM, but a hosted VM.
FWIW, I expect to see more self hosting as time goes on. Servers will be
moving out of the data center and into the locations where they're used
(decentralization, once again). I know I'm bucking the current trend
here, but I'm talking about several
On 04/29/2011 10:23 PM, Martin Waschbüsch IT-Dienstleistungen wrote:
Am 30.04.2011 um 05:40 schrieb David Bray:
Thanks for the Feedback
Understand about the Fedora Lifetime etc. I use VM's and Fedora 13 is the
current Fedora. Tried Ubuntu, CentOS and keep coming back to Fedora - mainly
I joined the Devel list as suggested, will look to what I can do there
With the VM's - who sells cheap VM's with Swap, I'm using vpslink, no
swap but ... only 512M - yes - M not k, used to have an XT with 512k,
upgraded it to 640k .. long time ago ...
They have a CentOS 5 option there - will
On 04/29/2011 03:47 PM, David Bray wrote:
The SpamAssassin install installs version 3.2.5
These comments apply to Clam as well, Clam is more complex, but it makes
the version updating a lot easier.
If the Install was per Bill Schupp's notes:
http://billslinuxqmail.sourceforge.net/toaster/
I've just used the QMT Recipe - and the good thing is the RPM based
Install, quite modular etc ..
but the version of SpamAssassin winds up at 3.2.5, SpamAssassin at
SpamAssassin is 3.3.1, Yum on Fedora 13 installs 3.3.2
I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind sticking with a 3.2
based
SpamAssassin 3.2.5 is current for CentOS 5.x.
When CentOS 6.x is available (probably in a month or so), I expect that
Jake will make a spamassassin-toaster 3.3.1 (which is current for
RHEL6.0) package available.
While there is probably not a major problem running SA3.3 with QMT
presently,
Thanks for the Feedback
Understand about the Fedora Lifetime etc. I use VM's and Fedora 13 is
the current Fedora. Tried Ubuntu, CentOS and keep coming back to Fedora
- mainly because the php is more up to date
The driving line is not so much SA - SpamAssassin as Clam, on my last
server - Fedora
Am 30.04.2011 um 05:40 schrieb David Bray:
Thanks for the Feedback
Understand about the Fedora Lifetime etc. I use VM's and Fedora 13 is the
current Fedora. Tried Ubuntu, CentOS and keep coming back to Fedora - mainly
because the php is more up to date
The driving line is not so much
12 matches
Mail list logo
