On Dec 19, Christopher Hilton wrote:
> Awesome. Then all I have to do to get the fresher code is either wrap the
> openlog_r and syslog_r calls in the spamd.c or write local functions
> which do the same. From the point of style which is preferable? Is it
> even possible to #define a C function to
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Dec 19), Christopher Hilton said:
A casual attempt to compile a fresher copy of the software shows that
spamd is using the OpenBSD's reentrant syslog functions (syslog_r,
openlog_r, etc) Is FreeBSD's syslog already reentrant?
It is, as of FreeBSD 5.4.
In the last episode (Dec 19), Christopher Hilton said:
> Christopher Hilton wrote:
> >Has anyone gotten a newer version of OpenBSD's spamd than the one in
> >ports going? I'm cvsupping my ports tree now but since I didn't see
> >an update on the cvs server I&
Christopher Hilton wrote:
Has anyone gotten a newer version of OpenBSD's spamd than the one in
ports going? I'm cvsupping my ports tree now but since I didn't see an
update on the cvs server I'm assuming 3.7 is the latest version.
Between OpenBSD 3.7 and 3.8 spamd gained t
Peter Matulis wrote:
[ snip ]
my secondary MX is a FreeBSD box with no such protection and I fear
that
the spammers will just take advantage of the fact that my secondary
MX
has weaker protections than my primary.
Yes, best practice is to configure all MX servers in the same way.
Especial
--- Christopher Hilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone gotten a newer version of OpenBSD's spamd than the one in
> ports going? I'm cvsupping my ports tree now but since I didn't see
> an
> update on the cvs server I'm assuming 3.7 is the latest
Has anyone gotten a newer version of OpenBSD's spamd than the one in
ports going? I'm cvsupping my ports tree now but since I didn't see an
update on the cvs server I'm assuming 3.7 is the latest version.
Between OpenBSD 3.7 and 3.8 spamd gained the ability to tarpi
