On Monday, May 28, 2012 02:22:32 AM David Hrbáč wrote:
> Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a):
> > Which is just as well, since this amavisd-new-milter is different from
> > amavisd-milter, which is currently at version 1.5.0, the version that is
> > compatible with amavisd-new 2.7.0 and up.
Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a):
>
> The amavisd-new-milter package does exist for CentOS 5.8; I cannot, however,
> find an amavisd-new-milter package for CentOS 6 in either rpmforge or
> rpmforge-extras.
Right,
there's no el6 build because of spec file:
10 %{?el6:%define _without_milt
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners
>> out of one milter?
>
> Yes.
>
> Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still
> hav
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners
> out of one milter?
Yes.
Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still have
running; amavisd-new runs clam (or, at one site, the sopho
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> To my knowledge no repos have the amavisd-milter package available; I've
> built my own for six years or so. I've used both, and the amavisd-new-milter
> (/usr/sbin/amavis-milter) is not nearly as useful as this amavisd-milter. In
> fa
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 05:15:41 AM David Hrbáč wrote:
> Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a):
> > At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes
> > some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance,
> > amavisd-milter (distinct from the much les
Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a):
> At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes
> some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance,
> amavisd-milter (distinct from the much less useful amavis-milter). Neither
> repo has amavisd-milter, so
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 03:26:02 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> But many, probably most of those cases are revs with forward/backward
> compatibility. It's hard to generalize about that, though.
Yep, it sure is. Forward/backward compatibility is almost entirely in the
hands of the upstream projec
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a
>> specific workaround, just illustrating the problem.
>
> Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare
> people off. You just
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a specific
> workaround, just illustrating the problem.
Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare
people off. You just have to pay attention.
> T
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:42:59 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> But odds are pretty good that you could grab the scalpel src rpm from
> epel and fix it to rebuild against the newer libtre in a matter of
> minutes. - just changing the spec, not the source...
Probably so, and I know how to do that, bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
