Is the SME 6 spamassassin build different from that created from the
sourceforge source? If memory serves, Charlie did some work on qmail-spamc.
I've noticed that SA 2.53 has become less effective at detecting spam than it
was a few months ago. My guess is that an upgrade to SA 2.60 will solv
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Coleman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:26 PM
> To: 'Gordon Rowell'; 'Devlyn Davis'
> Cc: 'Devinfo'
> Subject: RE: [e-smith-devinfo] Backup to DVD
>
> > > To me, that's a compelling reason to begin looking at DVD backup
> >
> > To me, that's a compelling reason to begin looking at DVD backup
> > options for e-smith. Has anybody put any thought/effort into
> > something like that? Do you know of any packages for Linux
> that has
> > support for DVD burning? I'll start doing some research, but if
> > anybody has
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 01:39:18AM -, Devlyn Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I've noticed that DVD burners have come way down in price to the $125-175USD
> range. DVD Media can be bought in bulk for ~$0.60 each. To me, that's a
> compelling reason to begin looking at DVD
Hi Folks,
I've noticed that DVD burners have come way down in price to the $125-175USD
range. DVD Media can be bought in bulk for ~$0.60 each. To me, that's a
compelling reason to begin looking at DVD backup options for e-smith. Has
anybody put any thought/effort into something like that? Do
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:54:33PM -0500, Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> This should do it:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:*:Go away
> [...]
nasty_person.com is not a valid domain name - underscore is
not valid in a domain name.
That should be:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:*:Go away
Gordon
--
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > has 99% or more of the
> > performance and features they need to continue selling that product
> > at a margin they find acceptable. They do not need to continue adding
> > too many more features besides security updates and tweaks.
>
>
Devlyn,
> I think Mitel have answered most of the questions, if some in a sort of
> round-about way. This is my take:
Your comments are essentially on target with just a couple of notes:
> 1. Their MAS 6000 server (our 6.0 unsupported)
Please be careful on this statement as there *is* a diffe
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]::REJECT
The above rule is incomplete as you are missing the RECIPIENT entry. Syntax
is:
ACTION SENDER RECIPIENT RESPONSE
Try:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:REJECT
Note, the docs propose to use '*' however this was discussed many moons ago
that '*' did not work at the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:*:Go away
Perfect!!! Many thanks Gordon.
Regards,
Greg
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For a
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:35:47PM -0800, Greg Zartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know the correct syntax to tell mailfront to refect email
> from a given domain. The mailfront docs seem very vague.
Did you have a look at /usr/share/doc/mailfront-0.81/mailrules.html ?
It may not be
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Greg Zartman wrote:
> Does anyone know the correct syntax to tell mailfront to refect email
> from a given domain. The mailfront docs seem very vague.
>
> I've set the smtpfront-qmail MAILRULES envir variable to the path of a
> mail rules file. This is the reject rule tha
Does anyone know the correct syntax to tell mailfront to refect email
from a given domain. The mailfront docs seem very vague.
I've set the smtpfront-qmail MAILRULES envir variable to the path of a
mail rules file. This is the reject rule that I'm currenlty using
(which doesn't work):
[EMAIL
(I am not sure if this should be raised here or on contribs.org)
In the future the community will need to take care of support, so here is
one idea.
Would it be possible to receive notification via email of forum posts that
match certain keywords.
I ask this as I try to h
BTW; thanxs for being so polite. That often (sadly) is not the case on this
list.
Bob, I can't recall the last time you contributed anything of substance
to this list. In fact, before responding to your email, I did a search
on mail archives for your email address. The first three pages of
re
On Monday 01 December 2003 04:09 pm, Greg Zartman wrote:
> > BTW; thanxs for being so polite. That often (sadly) is not the case on
> > this list.
>
> Bob, I can't recall the last time you contributed anything of substance
> to this list. In fact, before responding to your email, I did a search
>
I think Mitel have answered most of the questions, if some in a sort of
round-about way. This is my take:
1. Their MAS 6000 server (our 6.0 unsupported) has 99% or more of the
performance and features they need to continue selling that product at a margin
they find acceptable. They do not need
Thank you for your hard work Robert.
Robert van den Aker wrote:
Dear all,
It is not viable for me to continue to (unofficially) support SME/Alpha
V5.5 after 31 December 2003, the day that Red Hat ceases support for RHL
7.2, on which SME/Alpha V5.5 is based. It may be possible for me to
provide up
On Monday 01 December 2003 10:01 am, Craig Jensen wrote:
> In Other Words...
>
> They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available.
> What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any other
> unknown, will be known when it is released... Right? I think I got it
> a
On Monday 01 December 2003 09:21 am, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions
> > are appropriate at this time or in the near future.
> >
> > So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this
Dear all,
It is not viable for me to continue to (unofficially) support SME/Alpha
V5.5 after 31 December 2003, the day that Red Hat ceases support for RHL
7.2, on which SME/Alpha V5.5 is based. It may be possible for me to
provide updates after that date by way of the Fedora Legacy project, but
t
Craig,
> They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available.
Yep... we have always complied with the GPL (and have been very strong
in that position, going perhaps a bit farther than we needed to) and
always will.
> What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any
In Other Words...
They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available.
What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any other
unknown, will be known when it is released... Right? I think I got it
a week or so ago, actually :-)
Fear of the unknown can, "if we let i
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions are
> appropriate at this time or in the near future.
>
> So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this Charlie ?
Your question has already been answered, as you stat
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:34 pm, Charlie Brady wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are
> > you planning to use some other base of some nature ?
>
> Although I can understand your curiosity about Mitel's
The e-smith-cups package has been updated to work with SME 6.0b3. Special
thanks to:
- Peter Schubert for SME 6 compatibility testing and fixes,
- Jaime Nebrera Herrera for the Spanish translation,
- Fabien Illide for the French translation,
- Charlie Brady for the suggestion to use standard SME sa
26 matches
Mail list logo
