On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, James Lay wrote:
So I got a blatant virus attempt todaythe "Last Patch" one with the
bogus exe file. Is there a Spamcop type service where one can submit
virus sending hosts to?
I was thinking about tying in something like this to my own virus scanner.
If you want to
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Okay, new problem on my spamd install.
I think the problem is somehow related to the "accept failed" string I'm
seeing there.
I just have no idea what exactly a
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Saturday 10 September 2005 11:29 am, jdow wrote:
> t/05-rr-txtok
> t/05-rr-unknownok
> t/05-rrok
> t/06-updateok
> t/07-misc..ok
> t/08-onlineok
> t/09-tkey.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Mahoney, System Admin writes:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>
> > Okay, new problem on my spamd install.
>
> I think the problem is somehow related to the "accept failed" string I'm
> seeing there.
>
> I just have no
So I got a blatant virus attempt todaythe "Last Patch" one with the
bogus exe file. Is there a Spamcop type service where one can submit
virus sending hosts to?
James
On Saturday 10 September 2005 05:33 pm, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> If it's just one of the test that's failing then you might just want to
> try installing it anyways. It could be that the particular test is
> buggy.
>
> Gary
>
Its installed and appears, AFAICT, as it did before the upgrade. But, who
If it's just one of the test that's failing then you might just want to
try installing it anyways. It could be that the particular test is
buggy.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:32 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Su
On Saturday 10 September 2005 04:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just guessing maybe this test requires the nameserver to have a public
> address
>
> Wolfgang Hamann
>
Admittedly I do not know much about this, I guess that's very possible. I've
read the man page(s), gone to the Net:
Hi,
just guessing maybe this test requires the nameserver to have a public
address
Wolfgang Hamann
>>
>> On Saturday 10 September 2005 01:34 pm, Gary W. Smith wrote:
>> > It is seeing the correct name server. You might want to blow away the
>> > cached files (make clean) or re-download
On Saturday 10 September 2005 01:34 pm, Gary W. Smith wrote:
> It is seeing the correct name server. You might want to blow away the
> cached files (make clean) or re-download the module (CPAN after blowing
> away the original source files). It's possible that the make process
> created a cache f
It is seeing the correct name server. You might want to blow away the
cached files (make clean) or re-download the module (CPAN after blowing
away the original source files). It's possible that the make process
created a cache file containing the 192.x.x.x IP and it keeps using that
one instead o
On Saturday 10 September 2005 11:49 am, you wrote:
> You mentioned firewall. Is it possible that you are not opening up the
> right connections to localhost or to the 192.x.x.x machine?
>
> We tend to mix firewall and server software on the same machine from
> many small small clients. I'm assumi
You mentioned firewall. Is it possible that you are not opening up the
right connections to localhost or to the 192.x.x.x machine?
We tend to mix firewall and server software on the same machine from
many small small clients. I'm assuming that you are using iptables.
Did you open up lo for all
On Saturday 10 September 2005 11:29 am, jdow wrote:
> > t/05-rr-txtok
> > t/05-rr-unknownok
> > t/05-rrok
> > t/06-updateok
> > t/07-misc..ok
> > t/08-onlineok
> > t/09-tkey..ok
> > t/10
From: "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I was in the process of upgrading my Net::DNS module from .48 to .53 and I
noticed the following during tests:
t/00-load..ok
t/00-pod...ok
t/00-version...ok
t/01-resolver-env..ok
t/01-resolver-file.ok
I was in the process of upgrading my Net::DNS module from .48 to .53 and I
noticed the following during tests:
t/00-load..ok
t/00-pod...ok
t/00-version...ok
t/01-resolver-env..ok
t/01-resolver-file.ok
7/8 skipped: Could not read
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Okay, new problem on my spamd install.
I think the problem is somehow related to the "accept failed" string I'm
seeing there.
I just have no idea what exactly argument is being passed. I'm back to
running things in debug mode for the m
Okay, new problem on my spamd install.
All the child processess die, and do not respawn.
If anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears.
Sep 10 02:35:36 quark spamd[75838]: accept failed: Invalid argument
Sep 10 02:35:36 quark spamd[75842]: accept failed: Invalid argument
Sep 10 02:35:36 quark spamd[758
18 matches
Mail list logo
