At 01:02 PM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
So, it seems the DYNABLOCK check will hit for any email sent from a PC on
dialup/cable/dsl that uses an SMTP server for their domain and the
destination is on the same server as the SMTP server. Just trying to fully
understand the 2.6 point rule before
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Mangiafico writes:
>> >Email thru our server from home PC:
>> >---
>> >Received: from fico (ct-nrwch-cuda1-xxx.nwchct.adelphia.net
>> >[68.170.14x.4x])
>> > by lexiconn.serverhost.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
>> >hBB0Wcp23535
>> >
At 12:06 PM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
ok. For example, we are a web host, and I often email from my home PC on a
cable modem utilizing the mailserver of our own dedicated server in our
datacenter. If I do that, my email trips the dynablock check in SA. The
header you mentioned before was on
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > At 11:52 AM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
> > >ok, this one makes sense. I guess dynablock will hit on anyone who emails
> > >from their mail program and has the smtp server set to their hosted server
> > >instead of the ISP's mailserver. Will prob
Isn't dynablock off line as of 12/1/3??
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admi
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 11:52 AM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
> >ok, this one makes sense. I guess dynablock will hit on anyone who emails
> >from their mail program and has the smtp server set to their hosted server
> >instead of the ISP's mailserver. Will probably hit o
At 11:52 AM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
ok, this one makes sense. I guess dynablock will hit on anyone who emails
from their mail program and has the smtp server set to their hosted server
instead of the ISP's mailserver. Will probably hit on very high % of hams
as well, since most people wit
> >Email thru our server from home PC:
> >---
> >Received: from fico (ct-nrwch-cuda1-xxx.nwchct.adelphia.net
> >[68.170.14x.4x])
> > by lexiconn.serverhost.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
> >hBB0Wcp23535
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:32:38 -0500
> >From: "LexiCo
At 10:04 AM 12/11/2003, Rob Mangiafico wrote:
After upgrading to 2.61, we re-enabled the DYNABLOCK RBL checks. They
still seem to hit on emails that I do not believe should be matching
DYNABLOCK IP's. Here are a few headers they hit on:
Email thru our server from home PC:
---
Received: from fico
After upgrading to 2.61, we re-enabled the DYNABLOCK RBL checks. They
still seem to hit on emails that I do not believe should be matching
DYNABLOCK IP's. Here are a few headers they hit on:
cgiemail email
---
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by lexiconn.serverhost.net (8.11.6/8.11.6)
Having major problems building SA 2.61. All dependant and optional modules
are installed and up to date.
Make works fine but when I make test:
# Failed test 3 in t/spamd_hup.t at line 35
# t/spamd_hup.t line 35 is: ok (-e $pid_file);
# Failed test 4 in t/spamd_hup.t at line 37
# t/spamd_hup.t li
Appologies, I've solved my own problem. (I *always* forget to turn DCC back
off) Adding score DCC_CHECK 0 to my local.cf right now. :)
-Original Message-
From: Mark Muller
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] 2.61 scan time observation
Hey all,
Just an observation with my 2.61 upgrade this morning. Scan times on mails
are averaging about 6 seconds, and moving into the 10 second range at times.
My average scan time on 2.60 was about 2 seconds, 4 seconds if things were
really bogged down. I'm curious if anyone else sees this hap
During the install I got this error, not sure what it means.
t/spamd_portok
t/spamd_protocol_10.dubious
Test returned status -1 (wstat 139, 0x8b)
DIED. FAILED tests 1-10
Failed 10/10 tests, 0.00% okay
t/spamd_report..ok
--
Jack Gostl [EM
On 2003-10-06 22:11:24 +0200, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> Or wait for 2.61 which will remove these directories from the PATH
> automagically :)
What's the ETA for 2.61?
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 28359 Bremen,
15 matches
Mail list logo