On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:35:47PM -0900, W.D.McKinney wrote:
> > > To each his own though and as I always say, pick a horse and learn to
> > > ride. :-)
> >
> > yes, but it's generally better to pick a good horse rather than a
> > three-legged,
> > half-blind bad-tempered mule that is well past
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 14:25 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:13:58PM -0900, W.D.McKinney wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:14 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > migrating to/from qmail is always a PITA. aside from being ancient (and
> > > thus
> > > not keeping up with cu
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:13:58PM -0900, W.D.McKinney wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:14 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > migrating to/from qmail is always a PITA. aside from being ancient (and
> > thus
> > not keeping up with current mail practices, especially spammers and
> > viruses),
> > t
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:14 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> recipients on the RHS.
>
> migrating to/from qmail is always a PITA. aside from being ancient (and thus
> not keeping up with current mail practices, especially spammers and viruses),
> the main problem with qmail is that it is a dead-end
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 11:47 -0600, Jacob S wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if this is the correct way to increase the max number
> of connections, or how to do it if it's not? I would try to test it
> myself, but it is a bit hard to do on a busy server and when I would
> need a huge number of connectio
--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 08:47 +1100 Craig Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now I reject by 554 code... should I change to 4xx?
if it suits your needs. i wouldn't.
I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very well.
I don't mind handling the extra retry traf
--On Tuesday, December 07, 2004 22:18 +0100 Marek Podmaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hello Michael,
You mean you reject spam only temporarily? By setting
maps_rbl_reject_code in postfix to 4xx? What value exactly?
We use either 450 or 454, don't remember the value exactly. And I'm not
sure
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 10:18:28PM +0100, Marek Podmaka wrote:
> My question is - does the spam software (or whatever is used for
> sending majority of spams) try to re-send it?
most (if not all) spamware and viruses won't. open relays and spamhaus sites
and other real MTAs will.
> How ofte
Hello Michael,
You mean you reject spam only temporarily? By setting
maps_rbl_reject_code in postfix to 4xx? What value exactly?
My question is - does the spam software (or whatever is used for
sending majority of spams) try to re-send it? How often and for how
long? Now I reject by 554
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:57:30PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> I think that I would like to migrate to all exim4 and postfix (I would
> basically like to dump the sendmail and qmail systems).
good choices.
> The things that are vitally important are the ability to reject at smtp
> time for inval
also sprach Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.12.07.2157 +0100]:
> The things that are vitally important are the ability to reject at smtp
> time for invalid localparts
http://www.postfix.org/LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README.html
> and for viruses - I believe that postfix (at least in recent
> version
Hello all,
Where I work, we have a mix of MTA's, and are in the process of
reevaluating what we want to support. We currently have exim3, exim4,
sendmail, one qmail, and one postfix install. Both the qmail and postfix
installs are rather ancient - they are legacy that came with the system,
were
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 09:34 +0100 Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Various AOL mailservers, the Debian mailservers, and other servers
sending out lots of regular mail get listed in spamcop regularly, so my
recommendation (and that of spamcop.net themselv
--On Monday, December 06, 2004 09:34 +0100 Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Various AOL mailservers, the Debian mailservers, and other servers
sending out lots of regular mail get listed in spamcop regularly, so my
recommendation (and that of spamcop.net themselv
In the UK you have to "voluntarily" keep logs for the law enforcement
agencies for quiet a long time and most major ISPs here are doing this
voluntarily. They are currently trying to push something like this
through on the EU level, so might be coming to you soon too!
mimo
David Schmitt wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
On Friday 03 December 2004 20:07, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(And - this to Stephen Frost, I believe - there is a patch to postgrey
which I will include in the next version, and I believe which will also be
included in the
Am Dienstag, den 07.12.2004, 13:07 -0600 schrieb Jacob S:
>
> Do you or anybody else know what the default number is for
> max_connections?
100 is the default-value for max_connections
> I suppose it could be system load causing my problem,
> since top usually shows an average of 4.0 or 5.0 whe
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:14:41 -0500
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jacob S said:
> > Do you or anybody else know what the default number is for
> > max_connections? I suppose it could be system load causing my
> > problem, since top usually shows an average of
This one time, at band camp, Jacob S said:
> Do you or anybody else know what the default number is for
> max_connections? I suppose it could be system load causing my problem,
> since top usually shows an average of 4.0 or 5.0 when the problem
> occurs. It seems like the whole mysql server or apac
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:07:08 +0100
Achim Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 07.12.2004, 11:47 -0600 schrieb Jacob S:
> > Can anyone tell me if this is the correct way to increase the max
> > number of connections, or how to do it if it's not? I would try to
> > test it myself,
Hi all,
My server just ran out of space due to mail.log and mail.info getting
massive. I have run syslogd-listfiles --weekly, and both files are
listed in the output. Any ideas on how I can debug this? (Please CC
me, I'm not subscribed.)
Antony
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Can anyone tell me if this is the correct way to increase the max number
of connections, or how to do it if it's not? I would try to test it
myself, but it is a bit hard to do on a busy server and when I would
need a huge number of connections.
Back in the olden-days (1999) on Solaris boxes, a comp
Am Dienstag, den 07.12.2004, 11:47 -0600 schrieb Jacob S:
> Hello list,
>
> I am having a problem with mysql refusing connections intermittently on
> a webserver. It acts like an invisible limit has been hit on the maximum
> number of connections. Not finding any info in the config files about
> t
Hello list,
I am having a problem with mysql refusing connections intermittently on
a webserver. It acts like an invisible limit has been hit on the maximum
number of connections. Not finding any info in the config files about
the max number of connections allowed, I did some googling.
This url
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 00:23, Penbrock wrote:
> I am a newbie trying to learn our office servers so I have put a system up
> at home just like the ones our office uses for the ISP servers. I am
> trying to play around to find better ways to work things and I have come
> across MailScanner. I t
25 matches
Mail list logo
