Re: [CentOS] clarifications

2008-03-20 Thread mouss
James B. Byrne wrote: Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sam Drinkard wrote: Hello all, I've been trying to get spamassassin and clamav working, but got really confused when I realized there are various incarnations of the software. Originally, I started out with just spamassassin, but learn

Re: [CentOS] clarifications

2008-03-17 Thread Paul Heinlein
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, James B. Byrne wrote: Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sam Drinkard wrote: Hello all, I've been trying to get spamassassin and clamav working, but got really confused when I realized there are various incarnations of the software. Originally, I started out with just sp

Re: [CentOS] clarifications

2008-03-17 Thread James B. Byrne
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sam Drinkard wrote: > Hello all, > >I've been trying to get spamassassin and clamav working, but got > really confused when I realized there are various incarnations of the > software. Originally, I started out with just spamassassin, but > learned there is also

Re: [CentOS] clarifications

2008-03-16 Thread mouss
Sam Drinkard wrote: Hello all, I've been trying to get spamassassin and clamav working, but got really confused when I realized there are various incarnations of the software. Originally, I started out with just spamassassin, but learned there is also an SA-milter. Can someone tell me wh

Re: [CentOS] Clarifications

2007-09-13 Thread Jim Perrin
On 9/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering, rhel5/centos5 is 686, but when I went to > http://dag.wieers.com , the packages for rhel5 are either 386 or > x86_64. Why? > > Should I recompile them for 686 or is it a waste of time or it makes no