On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 09:45:41AM +0800, Paul Tan wrote:
> Hi guys and gals,
>
> I can't compile qmail-scanner on solaris 8.
> uudecode fails with an option error
> broken uudecoder on your system - cannot use uudecode component
>
> Error msg: test-uudecode.tst: No su
ue? ([Y]/N)
Is there a patch for it to work on solaris or do i have to edit the
"configure" file myself?
Thks
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Haar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December
So, do u use the external viru scan software?
or only the qmail-scan defaut?
Which external viru scanner r u using?
how big is the difference both on speed and secutiy?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:34:35 +0100
"Einar Bordewich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have been using qmail-scanner several
eibo(at)newmedia.no
- Original Message -
From: "Felix von Leitner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "qmail list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Should I try the Qmail-scanner?
> Thus spake Einar Bo
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 December 2000 at 19:54:33 +0100
> Thus spake Einar Bordewich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > We have been using qmail-scanner several months now, I can highly recomend
> > this solution. We are splitting the load on two dual PIII 700 proc. servers
>
Thus spake Einar Bordewich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> We have been using qmail-scanner several months now, I can highly recomend
> this solution. We are splitting the load on two dual PIII 700 proc. servers
> with 512MB each.
Virus scanners don't solve the problem.
http://www.fefe.de/antivirus/42.zi
We have been using qmail-scanner several months now, I can highly recomend
this solution. We are splitting the load on two dual PIII 700 proc. servers
with 512MB each.
Also running the QMAILQUEUE patch with no problems.
Here are the viruses trapped since 23/08/2000 15:30:48, and I must say that
t
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:30:18PM -0800, Eric Wang wrote:
> I am thinking to apply the Qmail-scanner to block the virus attachement,
> but I am wondering if this thing is a stable and efficient add-on and
> worth to have a try, because for our production mail and mail list
> server the stability
Jason Haar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone out there with an altered distribution of qmail-1.03 that
> contains the QMAILQUEUE patch? Pointing people to such a beast would
> certainly allow some less experienced people to get going...
Bruce Guenter's qmail SRPM might contain the
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:00:38PM +0100, Ruprecht Helms wrote:
> Am Die, 19 Dez 2000 schrieb Eric Wang:
> > Hi, guys
> >
> > I am thinking to apply the Qmail-scanner to block the virus attachement,
>
> better you try Amavis Scanner. The qmail-scanner is buggy and there isn't
> a fix for the want
Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:30:18PM -0800, Eric Wang wrote:
> > server the stability and efficiency is extremely high demand.
> > Any suggestion and experience are highly appreciated.
>
> First I have to say that we don't use the scanner.
>
> Some month ago someone poste
ardware to compensate for using the scanner
on a production machine.
-Original Message-
From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:46 PM
To: qmail list
Subject: Re: Should I try the Qmail-scanner?
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:30:18PM -0800, Eric
Am Die, 19 Dez 2000 schrieb Eric Wang:
> Hi, guys
>
> I am thinking to apply the Qmail-scanner to block the virus attachement,
better you try Amavis Scanner. The qmail-scanner is buggy and there isn't
a fix for the wanted patch qmailscanner is asking for.
If someone has fixed the problem, please
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 12:30:18PM -0800, Eric Wang wrote:
> server the stability and efficiency is extremely high demand.
> Any suggestion and experience are highly appreciated.
First I have to say that we don't use the scanner.
Some month ago someone posted to this list that plugging a virus s
14 matches
Mail list logo
