Christopher X. Candreva said:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
>
>> If user A emails user B and the email doesn't go through in under 2
>> minutes, there will be complaints. Tempfail is just too dangerous.
>> Yes, nothing will be lost. But you have to admit it's pretty bad for
>> ema
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
> If user A emails user B and the email doesn't go through in under 2
> minutes, there will be complaints. Tempfail is just too dangerous.
> Yes, nothing will be lost. But you have to admit it's pretty bad for
> email to be down. A few viruses leaking
Damian Menscher wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Richard A Nelson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Todd Lyons wrote:
It shouldn't, however change if a virus is accepted - since sendmail
should be tempfailing mail until the milters are functioning.
Incorrect, depending on how you define your
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Damian Menscher wrote:
> > For most mailserver admins, the danger of losing our jobs
> > is much greater if we tempfail all incoming mail due to a clamav crash
> > than is the dan
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I guess one cant legislate sanity, can one :(
> > > But spamassassin and clamav should default to tempfail !
> > >
> > > ...still cant believe
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I guess one cant legislate sanity, can one :(
> > But spamassassin and clamav should default to tempfail !
> >
> > ...still cant believe that
> > people aren't recommending a safe, by default se
Damian Menscher wrote:
> For most mailserver admins, the danger of losing our jobs
> is much greater if we tempfail all incoming mail due to a clamav crash
> than is the danger of losing our jobs due to a couple of viruses leaking
> through.
s/most/some/;
Spoken as one who has never gotten burned
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Todd Lyons wrote:
>
> > >It shouldn't, however change if a virus is accepted - since sendmail
> > >should be tempfailing mail until the milters are functioning.
> >
> > Incorrect, depending on how you define your milter call for se
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Todd Lyons wrote:
> >It shouldn't, however change if a virus is accepted - since sendmail
> >should be tempfailing mail until the milters are functioning.
>
> Incorrect, depending on how you define your milter call for sendmail.
Yes, I guess one cant legislate sanity, can one
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Todd Lyons wrote:
> >It shouldn't, however change if a virus is accepted - since sendmail
> >should be tempfailing mail until the milters are functioning.
>
> Incorrect, depending on how you define your milter call for sendmail.
>
> So by not specifying an F=T setting, you're
Richard A Nelson wanted us to know:
>> The sample init scripts (for RedHat) start clamd and clamav-milter at
>> sequence numbers 90 and 91. The RH default sendmail starts at sequence
>> number 80. I'd ignored this when setting things up before, since I
>Good plan, I did that for Debian - made se
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote:
> The sample init scripts (for RedHat) start clamd and clamav-milter at
> sequence numbers 90 and 91. The RH default sendmail starts at sequence
> number 80. I'd ignored this when setting things up before, since I
> figured being vulnerable to viruses
The sample init scripts (for RedHat) start clamd and clamav-milter at
sequence numbers 90 and 91. The RH default sendmail starts at sequence
number 80. I'd ignored this when setting things up before, since I
figured being vulnerable to viruses for a few seconds at boot time was
acceptable. But t
13 matches
Mail list logo
