ertFile
> SSLKeyFile
> SSLPKPassword
> SRSSecretKey
> relayAuthUser
> relayAuthPass
> syncCFGPass
> Groups
> SNMPUser
> ConfigChangeSchedule
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> Von:Graziano
> An: For Users of ASSP
> Datum: 28.05.2014 17:43
> Betreff:
roxypass
globalRegisterURL
globalUploadURL
globalClientPass
globalClientName
SSLCaFile
SSLCertFile
SSLKeyFile
SSLPKPassword
SRSSecretKey
relayAuthUser
relayAuthPass
syncCFGPass
Groups
SNMPUser
ConfigChangeSchedule
Thomas
Von:Graziano
An: For Users of ASSP
Datum: 28.05.2014 17:43
Betreff:
ok it works thank you, I was using assp as username (always used it with 1.x)
Graziano
> type root as username and your old password
>
> Dňa 28.05.2014 17:41 Graziano wrote / napísal(a):
>> Hello
>>
>> I am trying to upgrade ASSP 1.9.9 to 2.4.1(14145) .
>> When I start ASSP 2.4.1 and I try to open
type root as username and your old password
Dňa 28.05.2014 17:41 Graziano wrote / napísal(a):
> Hello
>
> I am trying to upgrade ASSP 1.9.9 to 2.4.1(14145) .
> When I start ASSP 2.4.1 and I try to open the ASSP web interface ;
>
> - old password does not work
> - nospam4me does not work
>
> I trie
Hello
I am trying to upgrade ASSP 1.9.9 to 2.4.1(14145) .
When I start ASSP 2.4.1 and I try to open the ASSP web interface ;
- old password does not work
- nospam4me does not work
I tried to stop ASSP, removing webAdminPassword row, restarting ASSP,
I can't login using nospam4me or old password
>I did a couple of times..when i open ppm interface..it says its
>installed..is there a way to verify installation
On a couple of CentOS systems I have, I was unable to get rid of
the warning even with an up to date version installed.
If you resolve it, post back...
jlc
I did a couple of times..when i open ppm interface..it says its
installed..is there a way to verify installation
-Original Message-
From: Fritz Borgstedt [mailto:f...@iworld.de]
Sent: Monday, 7 June 2010 10:46 AM
To: 'For Users of ASSP'
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Upgrading from
For Users of ASSP schreibt:
>What about the MIME::Tools error..its still present?
Did you do what is recommended in the message?
--
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway.
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Upgrading from 1.7 to v2...and MIME::Tools error
For Users of ASSP schreibt:
>My version of ASSP appears to be version 1.7.5.3(1.0.00) (from top
>of page)
>but i have upgraded to v2. I just copied the v2 pl files over the
>existing
>ones
Did y
For Users of ASSP schreibt:
>My version of ASSP appears to be version 1.7.5.3(1.0.00) (from top
>of page)
>but i have upgraded to v2. I just copied the v2 pl files over the
>existing
>ones
Did you restart ASSP?
Thanks people..found the resend option..
My version of ASSP appears to be version 1.7.5.3(1.0.00) (from top of page)
but i have upgraded to v2. I just copied the v2 pl files over the existing
ones
I keep getting an error please install the Perl module MIME::Tools (includes
MIME::Words) vi
et>
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:00:23 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Upgrading from
> Virgil de la Vega wrote:
>> I have been running ASSP 1.2.6 on a Windows platform for over 10 months
now
>> and the system has been running well and stable.
>>
>> It is running a
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 10:45 -0500, Hill, Brett wrote:
> Ever consider renaming the sensitive info (ie: email addresses, IP info,
> etc) in the header information? That's what I do when I post headers to
> the forum.
Yeah, but I thought that might defeat some of the point behind it. Also
not sure
onday, December 03, 2007 10:38 AM
To: Questions and Answers for users of ASSP Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Upgrading from
I would post headers or etc, but it's some what private info for a
client. To where I really shouldn't post headers here and publicize
their address for
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:53 -0800, Kevin wrote:
>
> What problems do you have with 1.3.3.8?
Bayesian spam problems, where messages with a 0.00 spam probability are
still being caught by bayesian filter. Which I don't understand because
when I analyze the same message without rebuilding the db. I
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
> The numbering on my development work is for only one purpose regarding
> the public: it shows there is a new version inside a version -
> therefore the(). From my viewpoint, date/time would be sufficient.
> People asked for some sort of versionnaming. I use the naming for
>
You are assuming to much.
The numbering on my development work is for only one purpose regarding
the public: it shows there is a new version inside a version -
therefore the(). From my viewpoint, date/time would be sufficient.
People asked for some sort of versionnaming. I use the naming for
check
On 12/3/2007, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 1.3.3.5(fb4)
> 1.3.5(2)
> 1.3.5(11)
> 1.3.5(pb3)
> 1.3.5(fc5)
> 1.3.5(3.1)
> 1.3.5(4.0)
> People complained when we don't change the version numbers.
> People complained when we do change the version numbers.
Oh, come one... I'm not complaining abo
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 12/2/2007, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I think you would agree a well polished version is much better than a
>> buggy release followed by many point releases.
>
> Of course...
>
> Ok, fair enough, but none of this explains these versions:
>
> > 1.3.3.5(fb4)
>
On 12/2/2007, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I think you would agree a well polished version is much better than a
> buggy release followed by many point releases.
Of course...
Ok, fair enough, but none of this explains these versions:
> 1.3.3.5(fb4)
> 1.3.5(2)
> 1.3.5(11)
> 1.3.5(pb3)
>Ok, so maybe I'm missing something...
maybe.
fritz
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify yo
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> Ok, but to my knowledge 1.3.3.8 is current release version and I believe
> it has several know bugs. Which I think several including myself suffer
> from. Will there be a another bug fix/patch release or etc?
No further point releases are planned for 1.3.3.
> Or ar
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 21:50 +0100, Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
> >Probably the fact that it goes from 3 (1.2.6) to 4 (1.3.3.7) then
> >back
> >to 3 (1.3.5) digit numbering.
>
>
> It went from 1.2.6 -> 1.3.1 -> 1.3.3 -> 1.3.3.1->1.3.3.7-> 1.3.3.8
> The 4th digit shows, that there was patching to a 3
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 12/2/2007 Kevin wrote:
>> The current *official* stable release is 1.3.3.8 right now.
>> That's version 1.3.3 point release 8.
>
> So what is 1.3.5?
>
> Why issue a new stable release before it is official? If it needs to
> wait, then wait...
It's a feature freeze, as
On 12/2/2007 Kevin wrote:
> The current *official* stable release is 1.3.3.8 right now.
> That's version 1.3.3 point release 8.
So what is 1.3.5?
Why issue a new stable release before it is official? If it needs to
wait, then wait...
-
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 12/2/2007 Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
>> The development went on with 1.3.4, 1.3.5 and 1.3.6
>
> Ok, so maybe I'm missing something...
>
> The 1.3 series was the first of the new version numbering, where the odd
> numbers were designated as the stable branch, correct?
>
>
On 12/2/2007 Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
> The development went on with 1.3.4, 1.3.5 and 1.3.6
Ok, so maybe I'm missing something...
The 1.3 series was the first of the new version numbering, where the odd
numbers were designated as the stable branch, correct?
When you say the DEVELOPMENT went on wi
Greg Wright wrote:
> Where I have had problems is with the fact that Fritz releases so many
> its hard to keep track of them all! I wonder if Fritz does anything else
> other than code anti-spam and dream about coding anti-spam, whatever the
> case, he is good at it. I just upgraded to a version fr
Anti-Spam SMTP Proxy
Subject: Re: [Assp-user] Upgrading from
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify y
>So, to offer a suggestion for a different way... since I hate the 4
>number system that Mozilla (and now ASSP) uses, I advocate to go back
>to
>a 3 number system.
We did not change to a 4 number system.
There were maintenance patches to the 1.3.3 version and we numbered
them.
The developm
>Probably the fact that it goes from 3 (1.2.6) to 4 (1.3.3.7) then
>back
>to 3 (1.3.5) digit numbering.
It went from 1.2.6 -> 1.3.1 -> 1.3.3 -> 1.3.3.1->1.3.3.7-> 1.3.3.8
The 4th digit shows, that there was patching to a 3 digit version
ongoing without new features.
>That's easy enough to f
On 12/2/2007, Charles Marcus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Then, once a 1.4.# was determined to be stable enough to go gold, it
> would be renamed 1.5.0, and a new stable branch is born... and so on.
And of course a new dev branch of 1.6.0
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 12/2/2007, David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Probably the fact that it goes from 3 (1.2.6) to 4 (1.3.3.7) then
> back to 3 (1.3.5) digit numbering. That's easy enough to follow, but
> the numbering on the betas is enough to drive anyone batty.
>
> 1.3.3.5(fb4)
> 1.3.5(2)
> 1.3.5(11)
> 1.3.5(p
Fritz Borgstedt wrote:
>> This wacky version numbering ASSP uses is going to drive me batty...
>>
>
> Exactly what is wacky with the version numbering?
>
Probably the fact that it goes from 3 (1.2.6) to 4 (1.3.3.7) then back
to 3 (1.3.5) digit numbering. That's easy enough to follow, but t
>This wacky version numbering ASSP uses is going to drive me batty...
Exactly what is wacky with the version numbering?
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop
>> I thought 1.3.5 was the current/stable release
> It's not. Not until you see it on sf.net.
This wacky version numbering ASSP uses is going to drive me batty...
:)
-
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Busin
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 11/30/2007, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Due to the somewhat significant changes since 1.2.6 it is probably
>> best to backup your current install and then install 1.3.3.8 cleanly
>> and re-enter your configuration.
>
> I thought 1.3.5 was the current/stable rele
On 11/30/2007, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Due to the somewhat significant changes since 1.2.6 it is probably
> best to backup your current install and then install 1.3.3.8 cleanly
> and re-enter your configuration.
I thought 1.3.5 was the current/stable release?
Why upgrade to an older o
Virgil de la Vega wrote:
> I have been running ASSP 1.2.6 on a Windows platform for over 10 months now
> and the system has been running well and stable.
>
> It is running alongside an SMTP (Mdaemon) service and communicates with a
> NOTES server.
>
> I am now looking at upgrading to 1.3.3.8 but
I have been running ASSP 1.2.6 on a Windows platform for over 10 months now
and the system has been running well and stable.
It is running alongside an SMTP (Mdaemon) service and communicates with a
NOTES server.
I am now looking at upgrading to 1.3.3.8 but considering the significant
changes (an
41 matches
Mail list logo
