Matt Kettler wrote:
At 09:50 AM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
Thanks for the info Matt.
It would be better(faster/reliable) to use DCC apart from SA(dccm), or
using SA with dccifd is a better choice?
It's not going to be faster or more reliable.. It's really a matter of
what you want DCC
At 09:50 AM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
Thanks for the info Matt.
It would be better(faster/reliable) to use DCC apart from SA(dccm), or
using SA with dccifd is a better choice?
It's not going to be faster or more reliable.. It's really a matter of what
you want DCC to do.
If you call
Matt Kettler wrote:
At 04:12 PM 2/9/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
It's dccm a better implementation rater than dccproc for those who are
using Sendmail? And if this is yes, how do I need to configure SA to
work with dccm? I couldn't find anything about dccm and SA.
You can't configure SA to
At 08:12 PM 2/9/2005, Jason Bennett wrote:
debug: config: read file /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf
debug: DCCifd is not available: no r/w dccifd socket found.
In that spamassassin config file I have (I tried without this entry and
get same thing):
dcc_dccifd_path /var/dcc
In the /var/dcc I have:
s
, February 09, 2005 2:32 PM
To: Matias Lopez Bergero; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: DCC implementation questions
At 04:12 PM 2/9/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
>It's dccm a better implementation rater than dccproc for those who are
>using Sendmail? And if this is yes, how d
At 04:12 PM 2/9/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote:
It's dccm a better implementation rater than dccproc for those who are
using Sendmail? And if this is yes, how do I need to configure SA to work
with dccm? I couldn't find anything about dccm and SA.
You can't configure SA to use dccm, because dcc
