Re: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found
On Friday 20 February 2004 07.36, Arnd Vehling wrote: [app requires new libc] > Can anyone clue me in on how to get those two forsaken libs cleanly > installed on a debian stable system so this damn binary will run? Is it an option to run that app in a chroot? cheers -- vbi -- Today is Sweetmorn, the 51st day of Chaos in the YOLD 3170 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thursday 19 February 2004 23.28, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote: > > For example, I'd like comments on > > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht > >ml > > a collection of lies, half-truths, and mistruths. Since Bjørnar was asking for qualified information, let's do the dance for him... | It has an official web page, but no third-party user-run web pages. http://www.aet.tu-cottbus.de/personen/jaenicke/postfix_tls/ http://www.kobitosan.net/postfix/ http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/smtpauth/ | However unlike qmail, there is not a large cottage industry producing | third-party extensions and contributions to Postfix. This is because the | modules in Postfix are more tightly coupled to one another and the | interfaces between them are undocumented, making it harder to write | third-party add-ons and replacement modules for Postfix than for qmail. http://www.postfix.org./addon.html | Also, this modularity does not extend to Postfix' configuration files. | Postfix is firmly in the same camp as exim and Sendmail here. It uses two | large monolithic configuration files, master.cf and main.cf, rather than | multiple simple small task-oriented configuration files. Like with all True, but is in the 'it's a feature, not a bug' category: you have all the info in one place, and you have comments in the default and (lots of) example conffiles. I guess exim4 has the best of both worlds here with a .d style directory, I wonder if postfix will follow suit here. | applications that choose this route, configuring Postfix thus requires that | one learn a set of configuration file keywords, and automated configuration | cannot be easily done under script control with echo and cat. There is postconf, and if add sed/awk to your toolset, you are not so helpless. Besides: how often do you do scripted reconfiguration of your mailer? I touch conffiles less than every month. | The glaring omission is a secure queue submission mechanism. Here Postfix | trades the appearance of security for actual security. Postfix boasts that | as standard it has no set-UID or set-GID programs, which superficially | appears to be an attractive feature. However, this boast comes at a price. | The price is that local users can place arbitrary junk into the mail | submission area, or delete submitted messages. Both qmail and MMDF avoid | this by having a non-world-writable submission directory and the program | that does the writing to that directory (qmail-queue and submit, | respectively) set-UID to its owner (the only set-UID program in the entire | package in the case of qmail). Huh? Users can send arbitrary junk in mail. Wow. Unique feature of postfix, sure. The only world writable things I could find in /var/spool/postfix were the sockets - so everybody can open the sockets and fifos in the 'public' directory. I guess this makes sense as everybody should be permitted to send email. | Furthermore, Postfix does not even fully utilise the user partitioning | capabilities of the operating system to fully insulate users from other | users as qmail does. You'd have to read the code to assess these. | Which daemons in Postfix run as root is not documented in the manual pages. ps is a handy tool, for one thing. Also, the man pages *do* have a 'SECURITY' section, where it say things like 'The qmgr daemon does not talk to the outside world, and it can be run at fixed low privilege in a chrooted environment.' | Postfix contains numerous configuration options, particularly in the area of | SMTP Relay service. However, the flexibility of Postfix is in many ways | illusory. Many of the configuration options control features that are | half-baked ideas from the Half-Baked Ideas Brigade. The two examples, smtpd_helo_restrictions and reject_unknown_client, *can* be used by site administrators. The default configuration afaik leaves them out. The documentation does describe what they do - and anybody with a bit of experience in fighting spam can see why they are useful. | There are several different "mbox" formats. MTSes such as qmail use the | "mboxrd" format that was proposed by Rahul Dhesi on 1995-06-04, which uses a | reversible encoding of "From " lines in messages. However, Postfix uses the | "mboxo" format instead. The encoding of "From " lines is not reversible in | this format, and where the original message contained a "From " line there | is no means for an MUA to obtain the message in its original form as it was | before Postfix delivered it to the mailbox. Somebody else will have to comment on that - I've got no idea what he's talking about here. | Postfix always requires DNS service. Dunno, never have tracked DNS calls. | Postfix modifies in-transit and inbound mail. I think the idea here is that any mail postfix spits out is regular mail according to the RF
RE: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found
Arnd, I don't know if it would work or not, but id be looking at running it in a chroot jail or possibly even UML. This way it would only require the libs it needs and the rest of the system should be fairly stable and it will make it easy to upgrade the package at a later date or the libs/prerequiste's of the package as they wont affect any other service / lib /system. ** Please correct me if Im wrong. Regards, Daniel Hooper -Original Message- From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 February 2004 2:36 PM To: Debian ISP Subject: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found Hi, ok, this is somewhat OT but anyway.. I have a binary (payware, no source) i need to run which needs bleeding edge libs which are only available in debian testing. As the prog needs to run on a production system i dont want to upgrade to the testing distribution. The libs in question are: libc.so.6 + libstdc++.so.5 I grabbed those, and some more libs from the unstable distribution, installed (or extracted) them in a separate dir tree but when i (LD_LIB_PATH set correctly) start the prog i only get the following error message: lib/ld-linux.so.2: version `GLIBC_PRIVATE' not found (required by /usr/local/lib/libdl.so.2) And some more similiar messages. Can anyone clue me in on how to get those two forsaken libs cleanly installed on a debian stable system so this damn binary will run? thanx, Arnd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
version `GLIBC_2.3' not found
Hi, ok, this is somewhat OT but anyway.. I have a binary (payware, no source) i need to run which needs bleeding edge libs which are only available in debian testing. As the prog needs to run on a production system i dont want to upgrade to the testing distribution. The libs in question are: libc.so.6 + libstdc++.so.5 I grabbed those, and some more libs from the unstable distribution, installed (or extracted) them in a separate dir tree but when i (LD_LIB_PATH set correctly) start the prog i only get the following error message: lib/ld-linux.so.2: version `GLIBC_PRIVATE' not found (required by /usr/local/lib/libdl.so.2) And some more similiar messages. Can anyone clue me in on how to get those two forsaken libs cleanly installed on a debian stable system so this damn binary will run? thanx, Arnd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:22:54PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > I take this to mean that there are no binaries to download from postifx.org > itself - all binaries are made by integrators/vendors. This does not mean > that making binaries is not allowed. Binaries are, indeed, released through vendors. See http://www.postfix.org/packages.html for a listing of various links to packages of postfix. The postfix.org website doesn't have the packages, but links to them all. According to the mirrors, Things are done according to the IBM public license, http://getmyip.com/mirror/pub/LICENSE Read the IBM public license and take it from there. Hope this might help clear up any licensing/packaging issues with postfix. Sorry, I cannot comment as to the status of qmail, since I have chosen to use postfix instead. j -- == + It's simply not | John Keimel+ + RFC1149 compliant!| [EMAIL PROTECTED]+ + | http://www.keimel.com + == pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote: > For example, I'd like comments on > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html a collection of lies, half-truths, and mistruths. the best that can be said about this document is that the author doesn't know what he is talking about. > and > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html biased bullshit and boosterism. rah rah rah! worship bernstein. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.56, Dan MacNeil wrote: > > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht > >ml > > says at the very bottom: > > Postfix is only available in source form, > not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries. > There is a list of FTP sites that hold the > source tarball on the official web site. > > I have apt-get install'd postfix so I suspect this is not true. If this is > an error, there may be others. I take this to mean that there are no binaries to download from postifx.org itself - all binaries are made by integrators/vendors. This does not mean that making binaries is not allowed. cheers -- vbi -- Der Satire steht das Recht auf Übertreibung zu. Aber sie hat es schon seit langem nicht mehr nötig, von diesem Recht Gebrauch zu machen. -- Gabriel Laub pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote: > [3] Craig Sanders wrote: > > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better. > > Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please > share? search the archives of this list. MTA comparisons have been discussed many times. i've made the arguments several times before and i'm getting bored of it. to summarise: 1. because qmail is so different from other MTAs, it is a dead-end trap, just like proprietary software. bernstein doesn't believe in making any effort to assist people who were using other MTAs and want to switch - migrating to qmail is a pain, and migrating away from it is just as bad. 2. it has severe licensing problems, which mean that the code basically stagnated years ago. no patches are ever accepted into qmail, and the author doesn't appear to be interested in making any improvements (in his estimation, it is already "perfect"...ignoring several glaringly obvious faults and lacks). the license means that using qmail is a reversion to the bad old days before free software became ubiqitous - the late 1980s for instance. back then you had to hunt for the original source (easy enough), then hunt for every patch that you needed to make it useful, then apply them (and hope that the patches are compatiblediscovering by trial and error that they can be compatible but only if applied in a particular *undocumented* order), then compile and install it. 3. bernstein insists that you discard years of practice, tools, and techniques and start from scratch. if you don't like it, then you are a moron because bernstein is Always Right so don't complain. 4. the configuration is truly bizarre.bernstein has his own non-standard directory structures, and a liking for many little files. many of these files are 'magical' - the contents are irrelevant, mere existence of them alters behaviour of the program, and even causes programs to be run automagically. this makes it impossible to experiment by temporarily commenting out particular lines - you have to delete a file, and then hope you can remember what it was called if you need to re-enable that feature. it also means that there is no config file containing comments to serve as working reference documentation. 5. bernstein likes to reinvent the wheel. he does this (and does it badly) without regard to whether the wheel actually needs to be reinvented or not (e.g. ucspi-tcp). this is compounded by the fact that it is a complete PITA to use any of his programs without using all of his programs. 6. the author is a rude jerk. this is undisputed, even by those who actually like bernstein's software. craig ps: as for postfix being better - it is: 1. free software, with a real free software license (IBM public license) 2. actively developed, with a friendly principal developer and helpful developer & user community. 3. backwards compatible with sendmail, so migration is easy 4. secure 5. fast (much faster than qmail) 6. the best anti-spam features of any MTA available 7. more features than you can poke a stick at -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 11:34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote: > I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've > not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer > postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] about qmail. > > If anyone have properly grounded views, please share! > > For example, I'd like comments on > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html > and > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html > > > > [0] A _qualified_ statement would e.g. be "qmail is trivially DoS'ed by sending > emails with no subject at a rate of 2 per second". Typical unqualified statements > are shown below. > > [1] Michael Loftis wrote (about qmail): > > First is, unless they've made design changes, > > it's trivial to DoS. > > Really? How would you DoS qmail? Could the same attack be used to DoS postfix? > > [2] Michael Loftis also wrote (about qmail): > > Second, it doesn't scale so well, but unless > > you're talking upwards of about 3-5k/msgs/hr > > you might not run into it. > > Really? Quoting Bernstein quoting Bill Weinman (cr.yp.to/qmail/users.html): > "Our busiest list is about 250 messages X 1800 subscribers > (avg mail deliveries: 450,000 transactions per day). Sendmail > was barfing badly on this, and qmail seems to be doing real > well. The machine is a Pentium 90 running Linux 2.0.13 with > 64Mb of RAM. I have the spawn limit set at 100. I am *very* > impressed." > > How was the qmail that didn't scale well configured? On what hardware? > > [3] Craig Sanders wrote: > > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better. > > Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please share? > > > Thanks, > > :) Bjornar > Bjornar, I have run them all at one time or another. We currently are running qmail for our main MTA's but have postfix running on the sidelines. I don't care to debate MTA's any more. Akin to debating which is a better automobile. So I say, "pick a horse and ride". Now that said, it really depends on your experience, time focus, OS and hardware. qmail does the job, round the clock. So does postfix. You mentioned nothing specifically about what you wanted to do with your MTA relays ? Hard to help. qmail & postix will both relay. Dee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote: > I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail > relays. I've not decided yet. Matter of taste - I find postfix' log files are orders of magnitude easier to read than qmail's. Also matter of taste - I could not wrap my head around qmail's configuration ideology. postfix imho stays closer to what I expect from a program in the Unix world. These two made the decision for me quite early, and I'm happy with postfix now, so I haven't gone back to see how well qmail would have dealt with requirements. A third argument - also not of the hard facts kind - is that I don't like qmail's licensing. cheers -- vbi -- Maintenance-free: When it breaks, it can't be fixed... pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html says at the very bottom: Postfix is only available in source form, not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries. There is a list of FTP sites that hold the source tarball on the official web site. I have apt-get install'd postfix so I suspect this is not true. If this is an error, there may be others. The biggest complaint I've heard about qmail is that its license requires you to install binaries according to the taste of the creator. This means that things are the same on Debian solaris and redhat but also makes it less "standard" if all you use is one distribution. On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote: > I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail > relays. I've not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that > many people who prefer postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] > statements[1][2][3] about qmail. > > If anyone have properly grounded views, please share! > > For example, I'd like comments on > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html > and > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html > > > > [0] A _qualified_ statement would e.g. be "qmail is trivially DoS'ed by sending > emails with no subject at a rate of 2 per second". Typical unqualified statements > are shown below. > > [1] Michael Loftis wrote (about qmail): > > First is, unless they've made design changes, > > it's trivial to DoS. > > Really? How would you DoS qmail? Could the same attack be used to DoS postfix? > > [2] Michael Loftis also wrote (about qmail): > > Second, it doesn't scale so well, but unless > > you're talking upwards of about 3-5k/msgs/hr > > you might not run into it. > > Really? Quoting Bernstein quoting Bill Weinman (cr.yp.to/qmail/users.html): > "Our busiest list is about 250 messages X 1800 subscribers > (avg mail deliveries: 450,000 transactions per day). Sendmail > was barfing badly on this, and qmail seems to be doing real > well. The machine is a Pentium 90 running Linux 2.0.13 with > 64Mb of RAM. I have the spawn limit set at 100. I am *very* > impressed." > > How was the qmail that didn't scale well configured? On what hardware? > > [3] Craig Sanders wrote: > > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better. > > Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please share? > > > Thanks, > > :) Bjornar > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] about qmail. If anyone have properly grounded views, please share! For example, I'd like comments on http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html and http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/qmail.html [0] A _qualified_ statement would e.g. be "qmail is trivially DoS'ed by sending emails with no subject at a rate of 2 per second". Typical unqualified statements are shown below. [1] Michael Loftis wrote (about qmail): > First is, unless they've made design changes, > it's trivial to DoS. Really? How would you DoS qmail? Could the same attack be used to DoS postfix? [2] Michael Loftis also wrote (about qmail): > Second, it doesn't scale so well, but unless > you're talking upwards of about 3-5k/msgs/hr > you might not run into it. Really? Quoting Bernstein quoting Bill Weinman (cr.yp.to/qmail/users.html): "Our busiest list is about 250 messages X 1800 subscribers (avg mail deliveries: 450,000 transactions per day). Sendmail was barfing badly on this, and qmail seems to be doing real well. The machine is a Pentium 90 running Linux 2.0.13 with 64Mb of RAM. I have the spawn limit set at 100. I am *very* impressed." How was the qmail that didn't scale well configured? On what hardware? [3] Craig Sanders wrote: > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better. Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please share? Thanks, :) Bjornar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
>-Original Message- >From: Rich Puhek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 04:44 PM >To: 'W.D.McKinney' >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Bayes filter at ISPs > > > >W.D.McKinney wrote: > >> >> We liked SA but was very tired of the perl usage on the MTA. Se we >> searched and found the Barracuda. Now we have Bayesian and more and a >> very nice solution, not on the MTA. I have not looked back. >> >> Regards, >> Dee >> > >Why didn't you use spamc/spamd? Allows moving the perl (and all the >work) to another host. Works great! > >--Rich > > Rich, Having an interface to SA on steroids was appealing. With the virusprotection clamd has nothing to do either now and the MTA just purrswith a lot less load. The cat's meow. Dee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 06:09, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
> I suppose many of you use Bayesian spamfilters at the ISP level.
> I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam
> correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set
> of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogofilter for an
> entire organization at all?
This will only help if you're users have login capabilities, but I use a
cron that calls, I don't know if this is doable w/out login shells for
the users.
for i in `ls /home/`;do user=$(echo ${i} | awk -F/ '{print $1}'); su -
${user} -- sa-learn --spam /home/${user}/mail/spam; done;
Obviously this is for spamassassin, but there must be a learning
capability with bogofilter. It ensures that the user just has to throw
their spam in ~/mail/spam and it updates their bayes db's. Then a
standard .procmailrc in /etc/skel and all the users home dirs to check
for headers.
I find this is better then a global bayesian filter because with all of
the users, the Bayesian filter tends to useless. I do use SA w/out
bayesian filters at the top level though.
> thanks,
> adam
Cheers,
lance
--
Lance Levsen, Catprint Computing
Linux Systems and programming
gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0xF2DA79C8
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
W.D.McKinney wrote: We liked SA but was very tired of the perl usage on the MTA. Se we searched and found the Barracuda. Now we have Bayesian and more and a very nice solution, not on the MTA. I have not looked back. Regards, Dee Why didn't you use spamc/spamd? Allows moving the perl (and all the work) to another host. Works great! --Rich -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 03:09, Adam ENDRODI wrote: > I'm considering replacing the current SpamAssasin to a true > Bayasian filter (bogofilter, actually) on a mail server, because > in personal daily usage, it has proven to be a better (faster > and more accurate) solution for me. > > I suppose many of you use Bayesian spamfilters at the ISP level. > I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam > correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set > of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogofilter for an > entire organization at all? > > thanks, > adam > We liked SA but was very tired of the perl usage on the MTA. Se we searched and found the Barracuda. Now we have Bayesian and more and a very nice solution, not on the MTA. I have not looked back. Regards, Dee -- Willam D. McKinney (Dee) Alaska Wireless Systems (907)349-4308 Office (907)349-2226 Mobile -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail>MailScanner>SpamAssassin:WebMin
On 2/18/04 10:20 PM, "Martin Foster" wrote: > > apt-get -t unstable source mailscanner (/etc/apt/sources.list has stable > deb sources, and unstable deb-src entries) > cd mailscanner-4.26.7 > dch -i > vi debian/rules > vi debian/control > make -f debian/rules clean > make -f debian/rules binary > > > You'll also want to ensure that 'Notify Senders = no' in > MailScanner.conf. The package and upstream have this set to 'yes', > which is a *major* source of spam. I've filed a bug report with the > package maintainer to have this defaulted to 'no', but I'm unsure if > he'll act on it. > > Finally, if you use sendmail, you'll need to setup two daemons, one to > send the inbound mail through to a queue directory for MailScanner, and > another to deliver once mailscanner is done. See the sendmail start > script below. We ended up cheating by symlinking and removing the old debris :) But If I run into additional issues I will attempt your approach. I appreciate the help. -- Thanks!! David Thurman List Only at Web Presence Group Net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
On Thursday 19 February 2004 13.09, Adam ENDRODI wrote: > I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam > correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set > of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogofilter for an > entire organization at all? Run spamassassin and bogofilter in parallel for the first months, and use sa to train bogofilter? I think separate databases per user are highly beneficial - some people hardly have any HTMl mail, for instance, others do - same with mail in foreign languages. cheers -- vbi -- Today is Setting Orange, the 50th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3170 Celebrate Chaoflux pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Bayes filter at ISPs
I'm considering replacing the current SpamAssasin to a true Bayasian filter (bogofilter, actually) on a mail server, because in personal daily usage, it has proven to be a better (faster and more accurate) solution for me. I suppose many of you use Bayesian spamfilters at the ISP level. I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogofilter for an entire organization at all? thanks, adam -- Am I a cleric? | 1024D/37B8D989 Or maybe a sinner? | 954B 998A E5F5 BA2A 3622 Unbeliever?| 82DD 54C2 843D 37B8 D989 Renegade? | http://sks.dnsalias.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTTP latency ..urgent
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:53:06PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 41 lines which said: > Another piece of software which will do this and much more is called > smokeping, I know, smokeping is a graphing layer above other programs (including echoping). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
