That's much better, thanks! I wasn't sure about this also "Because LWP
does not support IPv6". It *could* mean that LWP generally does support
IPv6, but mine doesn't. As I understand it now it means that LWP in
general doesn't support it.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: ht
Thanks for the explanation. So I just forget about this new module, I
don't need it. Just thought it might hold other advantages as the make
output seems to suggest it does.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:14:02 -0400:
> I don't use MailScanner and have no input on this issue, sorry.
I've installed my 3.4.0 rpm on two systems with MailScanner now, one of
them in production. I've also tested compiling rules. It seems to be
working just fine without any
On 10/12/2013 9:28 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Steve, the one who wrote this regex, would you please explain your
>> reasoning behind giving this rule a score so high as 2.8,
>
> That score was auto-assigned by masscheck, where it is doing quite well:
>
Am Dienstag, 15. Oktober 2013, 07:19:01 schrieb Andreas Schulze:
> Zitat von Florian Lindner :
> > Since we move our server (and upgrade from oldstabe to stable) I want to
> > reconsider how I organize mails serverside.
> >
> > Debian, MTA is postfix, MDA maildrop (like procmail), IMAP was
> > cou
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/14/2013 2:47 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
pts rule name description
--
On 10/15/2013 4:15 PM, David B Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2013 2:47 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2013 09:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
These two rules are adding 4.0 pts [...]
Content analysis details: (4.8 points, 4.2 required)
pts r
