In replying to my own message, I found the solution in the archive below...
http://asg.web.cmu.edu/archive/message.php?mailbox=archive.info-cyrus&search
term=procmail&msg=7973
Ronnie
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:02
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>Ya, saw someone's thought about that ... that would definitely work
>instead of the spam extensions, but I don't believe the lmtp proxy
>supports that yet, does it?
>
>
Correct. A general LMTP proxy framework doesn't exist yet. It would only
be a few hours work to take
In the last set of patches we sent to the list, we included a patch to
master.c to avoid losing track of child processes after a segfault. This
patch has a race condition that we saw triggered under high load, where
a child can be reaped before master has processed an
MASTER_SERVICE_UNAVAILABL
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> >Then again, someone mentioned in the other thread about having the perl
> >check to see if a user wants the filter to do the checks or not ... but,
> >in the content_filter itself, there is no concept *of* a user, so how
> >
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>Then again, someone mentioned in the other thread about having the perl
>check to see if a user wants the filter to do the checks or not ... but,
>in the content_filter itself, there is no concept *of* a user, so how
>would you do such a check?
>
>
In our content_filter
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Scott M Likens wrote:
> --On Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:29 PM -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 09 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Thaddeus Parkinson wrote:
> Things that catch my eye are the lines complaining about no CA data, and
> then, obviously, the SSL3 alert write:fatal:unknown. I don't think
> they're inter-related, since a self-signed cert should be sufficient
> for testing. Is it possible tha
In order to use hosts.allow you must enable TCP wrappers on Cyrus
Have you done this?
--On Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:46 PM +0200 Ede Wolf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering, what entries are needed for /etc/hosts.allow. Haven't
> found anything in the manpages. I tried "ma
Alright, I'm breaking down and turning to you guys for help. I know, it's
not even about the latest cutting edge development branch but rather a
2.0.16 problem. My descendents will be cursed for generations to come
because of this, yet I have no one else to turn to. Please, loan me your
pity an
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Ede Wolf wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering, what entries are needed for /etc/hosts.allow. Haven't
> found anything in the manpages. I tried "master and "imapd", still no
> connection was allowed (with ALL: ALL in hosts.deny). After all I was
> actually quite surprised than c
ede,
for our service names, we use imap and imaps. like so:
imap: foo.bar.com
imaps: ALL
that's for standard imap (143/tcp) and ssl-wrapped imap (993/tcp).
cyrus doesn't follow the convention of using the program name... w/ its
current design for running ssl-wrapped imap it can't, seeing as i
Hello,
I was wondering, what entries are needed for /etc/hosts.allow. Haven't
found anything in the manpages. I tried "master and "imapd", still no
connection was allowed (with ALL: ALL in hosts.deny). After all I was
actually quite surprised than cyrus uses those at all.
Running 2.0.16 on a s
--On Thursday, May 09, 2002 4:29 PM -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
>> > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> > > So, unless I'm overlooking something, is there some
On Thu, 09 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > So, unless I'm overlooking something, is there some way of injecting 'per
> > > user' options at the lmtp (and beyond) level?
Looks like a job for a lmtp
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
>Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:50:50 -0300 (ADT)
>From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Having an idea of how hard such is to do, and how long it could take, is
>th
syslog:
May 9 20:48:45 yxa imapd[7371]: open: user jas opened INBOX.msec
May 9 20:48:45 yxa master[13500]: process 7371 exited, signaled to death by 11
imap protocol dump:
1209 SELECT "INBOX.msec"
* FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen)
* OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Dra
Having an idea of how hard such is to do, and how long it could take, is
there any way we can get the spam extension added as an #ifdef'd/configure
option so that it doesn't get lost? There are more and more sites moving
to Cyrus, due to its black box aspect, and, except in very simplistic
cases
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:50:50 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Having an idea of how hard such is to do, and how long it could take, is
there any way we can get the spam extension added as an #ifde
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 15:15:22 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
One of the things that I *really* like about SASL is the fact that I can
add/remove features just by deleting the various auth libraries ... too
bad there couldn't be some sort of 'programm
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Of course, I could do this using the .spamassassin/userprefs configuration
> file, but this won't work since there is no way for postfix to
> differentiate users :(
I'll grant you that the extreme level of flexability you discuss
(modifying scores of
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > Of course, I could do this using the .spamassassin/userprefs configuration
> > file, but this won't work since there is no way for postfix to
> > differentiate users :(
>
> I'll grant you that the extrem
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > So, unless I'm overlooking something, is there some way of injecting 'per
> > user' options at the lmtp (and beyond) level?
>
> Sieve scripting allows such flexability:
>
> Want to disable the filter?
>
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> So, unless I'm overlooking something, is there some way of injecting 'per
> user' options at the lmtp (and beyond) level?
Sieve scripting allows such flexability:
Want to disable the filter?
Don't filter on the header that SA injects.
Want to whit
23 matches
Mail list logo
