[sniffer] OT Mdaemon Ldap (Ldaemon is Slow question)

I hate to put this to the sniffer list since it is way OT, however people on this list seem to have good insight. I've been having an issue with Ldaemons Ldap server being incredibly slow to respond to Ldap querys from clients such as Netscape, Outlook, and outlook express. Simply queries usually

RE: Re[4]: [sniffer]

Well, I think you will likely find that most organizations do use Mdaemon's built-in SA implementation. I have it under fairly high load and have no problems with it. No tool is perfect, so I use mutlipe tools. SA gives me a lot of flexibility in writing my own custom rules, WhiteLists, BlackLis

RE: Re[4]: [sniffer]

_M, <<_M said>> Is that true (do you think) or is it now more likely that SA would be disabled? I have no basis, but doubt that more than 5% of MDaemon configurations have SA disabled. I'm certain Sniffer would far benefit in the overall picture if you could create an installation that ties-in t

RE: Re[4]: [sniffer]

Hi Pete, Here is my setup. I still have SpamAssassin running, for two reasons. 1. It allows my users to submit False Positives, False Negatives, and Whitelisted address'. By using the built-in email address' that Mdaemon provides for those. I then setup rules in the Mdaemon Content Filter to the

RE: Re[4]: [sniffer]

We are running Sniffer with the Mdaemon plug-in and SA and it seems to work great for us, much better than our previous Imail/Declude sniffer combination. Jim Matuska Jr. Computer Tech2, CCNA Nez Perce Tribe Information Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTEC

Re[4]: [sniffer]

On Thursday, November 10, 2005, 11:45:48 AM, Peer-to-Peer wrote: PtPS> _M, PtPS> <<_M said>> will create a "default" installation that emits headers and puts PtPS> a .cf file in place for SA to interpret them. PtPS> Not sure if this is relevant to your thought process, but we feel that SA PtPS>

RE: Re[2]: [sniffer]

_M, <<_M said>> will create a "default" installation that emits headers and puts a .cf file in place for SA to interpret them. Not sure if this is relevant to your thought process, but we feel that SA (SpamAssassin) does more harm than good. Under moderate loads it bogs-down MDaemon so we always

Re[2]: [sniffer]

On Thursday, November 10, 2005, 9:40:42 AM, Daniel wrote: DB> Hi Pete, DB> Thanks for the info. I actually already have the current version running. DB> I'm very happy with it's performance. I just did not have a clear DB> understanding on those issues. DB> On another note, when you have the new

RE: [sniffer]

Hi Pete, Thanks for the info. I actually already have the current version running. I'm very happy with it's performance. I just did not have a clear understanding on those issues. On another note, when you have the new version install, will it overwrite my current settings? And will it also insta

Re: [sniffer]

On Thursday, November 10, 2005, 8:07:18 AM, Daniel wrote: DB> Hello, DB> Can anyone tell me if the Mdaemon Plug-in runs in persistent mode? Also are DB> there any plans to bring the plug-in to Version 1 status? The MDaemon plugin has no need for persistent mode because it is loaded and kept in m

[sniffer]

Hello, Can anyone tell me if the Mdaemon Plug-in runs in persistent mode? Also are there any plans to bring the plug-in to Version 1 status? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Bayerdorffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Numberall Stamp & Tool Co., Inc. PO Box 187 Sangerville, ME 04479 USA TEL 207-876-3541 FAX 207-87