On Friday 20 February 2004 07.36, Arnd Vehling wrote:
[app requires new libc]
> Can anyone clue me in on how to get those two forsaken libs cleanly
> installed on a debian stable system so this damn binary will run?
Is it an option to run that app in a chroot?
cheers
-- vbi
--
Today is Sweetm
On Thursday 19 February 2004 23.28, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> > For example, I'd like comments on
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht
> >ml
>
> a collection of lies, half-truths, and mis
Arnd,
I don't know if it would work or not, but id be looking at running it in
a chroot jail or possibly even UML. This way it would only require the
libs it needs and the rest of the system should be fairly stable and it
will make it easy to upgrade the package at a later date or the
libs/prerequ
Hi,
ok, this is somewhat OT but anyway..
I have a binary (payware, no source) i need to run which needs bleeding
edge libs which are only available in debian testing. As the prog needs
to run on a production system i dont want to upgrade to the testing
distribution.
The libs in question are: l
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:22:54PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> I take this to mean that there are no binaries to download from postifx.org
> itself - all binaries are made by integrators/vendors. This does not mean
> that making binaries is not allowed.
Binaries are, ind
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> For example, I'd like comments on
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
a collection of lies, half-truths, and mistruths.
the best that can be said about this document is that the aut
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.56, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht
> >ml
>
> says at the very bottom:
>
> Postfix is only available in source form,
> not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries.
> There is a list of
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> [3] Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better.
>
> Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please
> share?
search the archives of this list. MTA comparisons have b
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 11:34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've
> not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer
> postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] abou
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail
> relays. I've not decided yet.
Matter of taste - I find postfix' log files are orders of magnitude easier to
read than qmail's.
Also matter of taste - I cou
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
says at the very bottom:
Postfix is only available in source form,
not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries.
There is a list of FTP sites that hold the
source tarball on the official we
I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've
not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer
postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] about qmail.
If anyone have properly grounded views, please share!
>-Original Message-
>From: Rich Puhek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 04:44 PM
>To: 'W.D.McKinney'
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Bayes filter at ISPs
>
>
>
>W.D.McKinney wrote:
>
>>
>> We liked SA but was very tired of the perl usage on the MTA. Se we
>
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 06:09, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
> I suppose many of you use Bayesian spamfilters at the ISP level.
> I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam
> correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set
> of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogof
W.D.McKinney wrote:
We liked SA but was very tired of the perl usage on the MTA. Se we
searched and found the Barracuda. Now we have Bayesian and more and a
very nice solution, not on the MTA. I have not looked back.
Regards,
Dee
Why didn't you use spamc/spamd? Allows moving the perl (and all
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 03:09, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
> I'm considering replacing the current SpamAssasin to a true
> Bayasian filter (bogofilter, actually) on a mail server, because
> in personal daily usage, it has proven to be a better (faster
> and more accurate) solution for me.
>
> I suppose many
On 2/18/04 10:20 PM, "Martin Foster" wrote:
>
> apt-get -t unstable source mailscanner (/etc/apt/sources.list has stable
> deb sources, and unstable deb-src entries)
> cd mailscanner-4.26.7
> dch -i
> vi debian/rules
> vi debian/control
> make -f debian/rules clean
> make -f debian/rules binary
On Thursday 19 February 2004 13.09, Adam ENDRODI wrote:
> I'd like to ask how do you teach it to separate ham and spam
> correctly? In particular, how do I select a representative set
> of ham and spam? Is it a good idea to deploy bogofilter for an
> entire organization at all?
Run spamassassin
I'm considering replacing the current SpamAssasin to a true
Bayasian filter (bogofilter, actually) on a mail server, because
in personal daily usage, it has proven to be a better (faster
and more accurate) solution for me.
I suppose many of you use Bayesian spamfilters at the ISP level.
I'd like
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:53:06PM +1100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
> Another piece of software which will do this and much more is called
> smokeping,
I know, smokeping is a graphing layer above other programs (including
echoping).
--
To
20 matches
Mail list logo
