Re: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

Kevin wrote: > Jay Tarbox wrote: > >> The half open TCP/IP connections can be changed with a utility: >> http://www.lvllord.de/ >> > > Yes thats true, but it's still just a hack. > I would never use it for anything "Production", though i would never use > XP for "Production" servers anyway

Re: [Assp-user] DNSBL repeating

And again- I've put EVERYTHING back into test mode. The message still doesn't complete. Dec-30-06 04:12:53 Connected: 64.58.191.84:37514 -> 213.152.60.37:25 -> 10.7.11.37:225 Dec-30-06 04:12:54 64.58.191.84 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] recipient accepted unchecked:

Re: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

Jay Tarbox wrote: > The half open TCP/IP connections can be changed with a utility: > http://www.lvllord.de/ Yes thats true, but it's still just a hack. I would never use it for anything "Production", though i would never use XP for "Production" servers anyways. Kevin --

Re: [Assp-user] OT: Exim force to non-primary MX

brougham Baker wrote: > Quick bit- How do I force Exim to forwards mail to the non-primary MX > record? I can find the answer for just about every other MTA but not Exim. > > > Any scripts/ideas/pointers? > google? http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html/spec_html/ch46.html#id2692991 o

[Assp-user] DNSBL repeating

Any idea what this is all about? The mail didn't get through. This and the header limit was why I went back to 1.2.6- I've only just tried 1.2.7 again. Dec-30-06 01:33:25 Connected: 213.225.139.107:2854 -> 213.152.60.37:25 -> 10.7.11.37:225 Dec-30-06 01:33:25 213.225.139.107 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to

Re: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

The half open TCP/IP connections can be changed with a utility: http://www.lvllord.de/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:01 PM To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy Subject: R

[Assp-user] OT: Exim force to non-primary MX

Quick bit- How do I force Exim to forwards mail to the non-primary MX record? I can find the answer for just about every other MTA but not Exim. Background- I've been loosing a lot of email over the last couple of months from mailing lists- I know this is NOT ASSP related. I captured the syn pack

Re: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

geode wrote: > Can multiple instances of ASSP run using different IPs and/or ports on the > same (windows XP) machine? Yes, each ASSP install would require it's own install dir c:\assp1, c:\assp2 etc. Though I would not run anything over a low volume server on XP due to the limited half open TC

Re: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

Absolutely, been doing it for a year with 10 instances on the same 2000 server. - Original Message - From: "geode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: [Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP Can multiple instances of ASSP run using diffe

Re: [Assp-user] MRTG & ASSP

I've seen cacti scripts online. Sorry, but I don't have a link. -- ME2 (mobile) -Original Message- From: "Evans Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, Dec 29, 2006 4:24 pm Subject: [Assp-user] MRTG & ASSP Has anyone seen a script that will integrate something like MRTG or Cacti rep

[Assp-user] Multiple IPs/ports/instances of ASSP

Can multiple instances of ASSP run using different IPs and/or ports on the same (windows XP) machine? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-IPs-ports-instances-of-ASSP-tf2896758.html#a8093109 Sent from the assp-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Assp-user] MRTG & ASSP

Has anyone seen a script that will integrate something like MRTG or Cacti reporting with ASSP? Thanks, Evans Martin --- Evans L. Martin - Martek.Net / MartekWare.Com Phone: (615) 533-0197 AOL IM: Martek01 Hosting Solutions &

[Assp-user] URIBL

Of the domains listed by uribl providers surbl.org or uribl.com in mails received by us in the last week: - 67% was listed by surbl.org alone - 21% was listed by uribl.com alone but some of these were false positives - 12% was listed by both surbl.org and uribl.com (seems consistent with before) S