Dear experts,
I have just installed MIMEDefang and SpamAssassin onto
newly upgraded sendmail 8.12 on my RH 7.2. I have not
configured much yet in mimedefang-filter, just admin's
name and e-mail.
Then I cannot send a mail from my Outlook account. I
checked mailq and saw there were many mails
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Va
Dear experts,
I have just installed MIMEDefang and SpamAssassin onto
newly upgraded sendmail 8.12 on my RH 7.2. I have not
configured much yet in mimedefang-filter, just admin's
name
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Beal
What I would prefer is to create a new mail message which has
the same subject as the original, which has its body as the
spam report and has the original email as an attachment. Any
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which RFC(s) do these timeouts violate?
RFC 1123, section 5.3.2.
-- Paul Heinlein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am trying to plan for MD/SA deployment here. I would like to get the
benefit of experienced MD/SA users' concerning performance. Our site
processes up to 500,000 messages daily. Our average message size is
30KB. Our max mail message size is 100MB. We have two AIX 5.1 machines
running
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My intent is not to start a protracted argument over this but:
The way I read RFC 1123, assuming you understand the implications of
changing the sendmail timeout values and you are doing so for a valid
reason, you are NOT in violation of the RFC to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Steve Moore wrote:
I am trying to plan for MD/SA deployment here. I would like to get the
benefit of experienced MD/SA users' concerning performance. Our site
processes up to 500,000 messages daily. Our average message size is
30KB. Our max mail message size is 100MB.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/27/2004 01:25:55
PM:
You cannot run a high-volume MIMEDefang server *without* a RAMdisk.
Consider it mandatory.
How should the ramdisk be sized? Besides /var/spool/MIMEDefang, what else
should be on it?
___
Visit
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which RFC(s) do these timeouts violate?
RFC 1123, section 5.3.2.
-- Paul Heinlein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon R. Kibler said:
You may want to see this posting regarding caching other things:
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2004-February/019800.html
Thanks for hte information on that Jon, I learned a little more about some
good sendmail tweaks.
Just put in my little 2
For a quick change on a server in place with plenty of ram with tmpfs
compiled and configured to /dev/shm, does anyone see a problem with just
adding the following (or very similar) to the mimedefang startup script?
cd /dev/shm
mkdir MIMEDefang
chmod 700 MIMEDefang
chown defang.defang MIMEDefang
Last night I saw an MIMEDefang error in my mail logs that I have never
noticed before:
### TRACKING MESSAGE: i1R1dKT7023699
Feb 26 23:02:39 mx sendmail[23699]: i1R1dKT7023699:
from=[EMAIL PROTECTED], size=14033627, class=0, nrcpts=2,
msgid=[EMAIL PROTECTED], proto=ESMTP,
daemon=MTA,
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Sims wrote:
Basically I say all this to ask a question. Is it possible that this
message is taking so long to transfer that the MD slave is dying before it
is fully received, and this is what is causing the broken pipe error?
Nope. No slave is even involved
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Michael Sims wrote:
Basically I say all this to ask a question. Is it possible that this
message is taking so long to transfer that the MD slave is dying
before it is fully received, and this is what is causing the broken
pipe error?
Nope. No
14 matches
Mail list logo
