John Rudd schrieb:
1) it was installed via CPAN. Anyone know of a good way to uninstall
perl modules in general, esp. ones installed via CPAN?
Perhaps
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html#How_delete_Perl_modules is
helpful? (Not tested.)
-thh
Evan Platt schrieb:
Not sure what you mean by filter a website...
A good guess could be that he/she is referring to an URL or the domain
name.
Sandeep Agarwal schrieb:
Mar 18 23:44:13 ngblhost3 spamd[25141]: spamd: checking message [EMAIL
PROTECTED] for qscand:510
Mar 18 23:44:53 ngblhost3 qmail-scanner[26689]:
Clear:RC:0(89.32.82.253):SA:0(?/?): 603.4716 17803 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED] This_is_unbeleivable! [EMAIL
R Lists06 schrieb:
Is sa-update broken
No.
But it does work better if you install all needed dependencies and
follow the instructions. Without dependencies it doesn't run (who
would have guessed?), and without following the instructions the
result may not be what you expected.
-thh
Guy Waugh schrieb:
The above stuff appears in my logs when, for example, our MX receives
spam for an unknown local user and tries to bounce the mail back to the
sender.
You should not accept mail for unknown local users because bouncing it
to a mostly faked sender means you're sending out
Jason Marshall schrieb:
I'm sure I'm not the first one to suggest this, but why NOT always display
the numbers in their entirety? I can't think of any reason why a user
would say please give me less accuracy and a lot more confusion in return
for fewer digits to parse.
But I can - and I
mouss schrieb:
Use the 'REPORT' or 'REPORT_IFSPAM' spamd command instead of 'SYMBOLS'
or 'PROCESS' to get the full score report but not the full message.
This requires parsing the message.
I would like getting something like:
ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44,MISSING_SUBJECT=1.345
Why don't you
Duncan Findlay schrieb:
Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD?
Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking
about?
The one reported by him in
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I think.
jdow schrieb:
However,
if a message came from a client who gave SMTP-AUTH, it ought to be
trusted (and not subjected to the blacklist checks).
Would you care to expound on your theory here. What makes you think
a valid SPF is a sign of a good guy?
SMTP authentification has nothing -
