Hi Jawaid,
Jawaid Bazyar wrote:
So over the years, for fault tolerance, we have built up an email
cluster. I was easily able to clusterize everything, but I still have a
central file server for storing the mailboxes (maildir) and certain
dynamic configuration databases (pop before smtp).
Hi,
Marco Herrn wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:11:47PM +0100, Paul Dekkers wrote:
But what is still confusing me, is that the mail don't get delivered.
When spamc gets a timeout, that should be a 4xx error (which is the
case). But why does the message bounce?
... good
Hi,
Marco Herrn wrote:
2006-02-09 13:19:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 = [EMAIL PROTECTED] H=fmmailgate01.web.de
[217.72.192.221] P=esmtp S=30388 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2006-02-09 13:24:49 1F7Am3-0008Uf-W1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: spamcheck transport
output: An error was detected while processing a file of BSMTP
Hi,
Marco Herrn wrote:
I am running exim 4.50 with virtual domains/users. Some of the users
get their mails checked for spam by a seperate transport. Since
yesterday some mails were rejected, because of problems with this
transport.
Funny thing is that today a similar thing happened to me.
Hi,
Riemer Palstra wrote:
2) If I put malware = */defer_ok in my check data ACL, will that
accept the mail and relay it out to the world, or will it accept and
queue until clam is back up. The latter would be better, but I'm not
sure if it is possible.
The first. Consider putting a
Hi,
Patrice wrote:
is it possible to compil the exim binary in static ? (without using .so
files)
and if possible is it a good choice or not ?
I used:
LDFLAGS=-static
... in the Makefile. Don't know if this is the best place to put it, but
it worked ;-)
I used this to run exim in a
to do, but just
to be sure...
Regards,
Paul
Patrice
Paul Dekkers wrote:
Hi,
Patrice wrote:
is it possible to compil the exim binary in static ? (without using
.so files)
and if possible is it a good choice or not ?
I used:
LDFLAGS=-static
... in the Makefile. Don't know
Hi,
Thomas Hochstein wrote:
Cole Tuininga schrieb:
When an email comes in for a particular user, I'd like it to be
processed through Spam Assassin, using that particular user's
preferences. As I understand it, that mostly gets rid of the idea of
using an ACL to do it.
Then do it the
