Jason Haar wrote:
> 0.003 secs to fail means spamd ain't running at a guess...
>
E - yucky English. Let's try that again
"At a guess, I'd say spamd isn't even running."
There - that's better ;-)
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635
Craig Sparks wrote:
> Anyone ran into this problem before and could give me a shove in the
> right direction.
>
> Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:28 CDT:1948: SA: finished scan in 0.00344 secs -
> hits=?
> Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:49 CDT:2211: SA: REPORT hits = ?/?
> Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:49 CDT:2211: SA:
Anyone ran into this problem before and could give me a shove in the
right direction.
Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:28 CDT:1948: SA: finished scan in 0.00344 secs -
hits=?
Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:49 CDT:2211: SA: REPORT hits = ?/?
Sun, 10 May 2009 17:48:49 CDT:2211: SA: finished scan in 0.003359 secs -
