Re: [qmailtoaster] Clamd suggestions

2020-12-14 Thread Remo Mattei
👍 > On Dec 14, 2020, at 21:19, Eric Broch wrote: > > I'm thinking about making the stock CentOS 7 install with EPEL clamd and > removing it from the qmt repo altogether. Give me a couple days. > > On 12/14/2020 10:18 PM, Eric Broch wrote: >> yum --disablerepo=qmt-current update >> >> On 12/14

Re: [qmailtoaster] Clamd suggestions

2020-12-14 Thread Eric Broch
I'm thinking about making the stock CentOS 7 install with EPEL clamd and removing it from the qmt repo altogether. Give me a couple days. On 12/14/2020 10:18 PM, Eric Broch wrote: yum --disablerepo=qmt-current update On 12/14/2020 10:17 PM, Remo Mattei wrote: Hi all, I just tried to do the up

Re: [qmailtoaster] Clamd suggestions

2020-12-14 Thread Eric Broch
yum --disablerepo=qmt-current update On 12/14/2020 10:17 PM, Remo Mattei wrote: Hi all, I just tried to do the update and I get this --> Processing Conflict: clamav-filesystem-0.103.0-1.el7.noarch conflicts clamav < 0.103.0-1.el7 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: clamav-0.102.

[qmailtoaster] Clamd suggestions

2020-12-14 Thread Remo Mattei
Hi all, I just tried to do the update and I get this --> Processing Conflict: clamav-filesystem-0.103.0-1.el7.noarch conflicts clamav < 0.103.0-1.el7 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: clamav-0.102.4-1.el7.x86_64 (@epel) Requires: clamav-filesystem = 0.102.4-1.el7

Re: [qmailtoaster] dh key too small

2020-12-14 Thread Eric Broch
What QMT/CentOS versions? On 12/14/2020 6:53 PM, Angus McIntyre wrote: My new toaster delivers mail just fine to almost all hosts. However, with one destination host I get the error:   TLS connect failed: error:141A318A:SSL routines:tls_process_ske_dhe:   dh key too small; connected to x.x.x.

[qmailtoaster] dh key too small

2020-12-14 Thread Angus McIntyre
My new toaster delivers mail just fine to almost all hosts. However, with one destination host I get the error: TLS connect failed: error:141A318A:SSL routines:tls_process_ske_dhe: dh key too small; connected to x.x.x.x I'm not going to try again ... The question is, which host has the un