Hey- normally I don't get too excited about viruses b/c I use postfix
and no windows clients.... but I saw a reply in here that said it came
from me. Since I have not sent anything to the list is a long while I
am worried... Can someone please do me a favor and check the headers
and see if it really did come from rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or if that is
the virus playing games again???? Thanks and sorry if it was me...
Rod
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:00, fedora-test-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Send fedora-test-list mailing list submissions to
> fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> fedora-test-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fedora-test-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of fedora-test-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: x86_64 updates (Chuck Mead)
> 2. Re: test (Chuck Mead)
> 3. Re: test (shrek-m@xxxxxx)
> 4. Re: test (shrek-m@xxxxxx)
> 5. Re: test (csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 6. rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Gene C.)
> 7. Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Jeremy Katz)
> 8. Re: x86_64 updates (csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 9. Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Gene C.)
> 10. Re: x86_64 updates (csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 11. Re: x86_64 updates (Chuck Mead)
> 12. Fedora Bug Day Tomorrow: Jan 28th 2004: Bugzilla versus Mothra (Jef
> Spaleta)
> 13. anyone using raid?> (jason pearl)
> 14. Re: test (Michael Schwendt)
> 15. Re: test (Dennis Gilmore)
> 16. a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (shrek-m@xxxxxx)
> 17. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Denis Croombs)
> 18. RE: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Randal, Phil)
> 19. Re: x86_64 updates (Rob Myers)
> 20. Re: x86_64 updates (Rob Myers)
> 21. RFE for AV (was: RE: test) (Vanco, Don)
> 22. RE: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Chris Ricker)
> 23. Re: RFE for AV (was: RE: test) (Thomas Munck Steenholdt)
> 24. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Dennis Gilmore)
> 25. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Chris Ricker)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:13:07 -0500
> From: Chuck Mead <csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
> |
> |>Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
> |>
> |>
> |>[updates]
> |>name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
> |>baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
> |>
> |>It worked fine.
> |>
> |>If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
> |>For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
> |
> |
> | thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some
> | effort!
> |
> | i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
> | and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
> |
> | package version on i386 version on x86-64
> | -------------------------------------------------------------------
> | net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2
> | kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
> | glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
> |
> | is this data correct? is it worth updating these packages?
> |
> | the kernel package seems important, but i'm running 2.6.2-rc2 so i don't
> | care too much.
> |
> | let me know what you think, and thanks again for the slocate update!
> |
> | rob.
> |
> |
> [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q glibc
> glibc-2.3.2-101.4
> glibc-2.3.2-101.4
>
> *there are two of these because one provides x86 compatibility I will
> see about an update
>
> [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q net-snmp
> net-snmp-5.0.9-2 <---- I will see about providing an update for this.
>
> [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q kernel
> kernel-2.4.22-1.2135.nptl
> kernel-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl <---- I can provide an update for this also
> but I don't want to do both... seems unnecessary!
>
> - --
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFAFuJzq3bny/5+GAcRAtKBAKCdOg5xMEaazPW1FMDWseDw8/acyACgoyXe
> v7lJlvEBsPVU/jbhgi7+KZ8=
> =hb8i
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:20:22 -0500
> From: Chuck Mead <csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> | The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
> attachment.
>
> bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
>
> Stupid viruses...
>
> - --
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFAFuQmq3bny/5+GAcRAjT5AJ9+txpNfPCqGYamoweWTbdnO0NT9wCfW/7z
> JS+tZbKWSvpcY+Qc+RY22Tc=
> =2PTg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:21:33 +0100
> From: "shrek-m@xxxxxx" <shrek-m@xxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
> > attachment.
>
>
>
> > >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
>
> http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
>
> --
> shrek-m
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:31:37 +0100
> From: "shrek-m@xxxxxx" <shrek-m@xxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> shrek-m@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> >> >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
> >
> > http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
>
>
> i bet that you will see more viruses in 2004 than in 2003
>
> please include MailScanner in the near future,
> or can you recommend a better tool?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113242
>
>
> --
> shrek-m
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:50:49 -0500 (EST)
> From: csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I dunno 'cause I do this server side.
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, shrek-m@xxxxxx spewed into the bitstream:
>
> s>shrek-m@xxxxxx wrote:
> s>
> s>>> >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
> s>>
> s>> http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
> s>
> s>
> s>i bet that you will see more viruses in 2004 than in 2003
> s>
> s>please include MailScanner in the near future,
> s>or can you recommend a better tool?
> s>
> s>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113242
> s>
> s>
> s>
>
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAFutPq3bny/5+GAcRAttXAKCIEB/5fWipk8gsiJfRjLumJ2h5+gCfahZP
> JbMptz+l0/J0tkQyjjwa+Y8=
> =GhN2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "Gene C." <czar@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:18:50 -0500
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of
> glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the
> x86_64? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
>
> Besides the man and info files which are duplicates of the ones in the x86_64
> glibc-devel package, the i386 package only contains files in /usr/lib.
>
> Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to why.
>
> An additional issue is that the i386 glibc-devel is not part of the FC1
> x86_64
> test1 distribution (only glibc for the i686). Shouldn't I be able to rebuild
> any package in a distribution given only the packages contained in the
> distribution?
>
> Do I need the i386 version of glibc-devel to rebuild on the sparc? How about
> the IA64 Itanium?
> --
> Gene
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Subject: Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
> From: Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:23:09 -0500
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:18 -0500, Gene C. wrote:
> > Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of
> > glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the
> > x86_64? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
> [snip]
> > Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to
> > why.
>
> It's required so that you can build a gcc that supports -m32 and thus
> compile 32bit apps.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:15:32 -0500 (EST)
> From: csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
>
> RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
> RM>>
> RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
> RM>>
> RM>>
> RM>> [updates]
> RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
> RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
> RM>>
> RM>> It worked fine.
> RM>>
> RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
> RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
> RM>
> RM>thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some
> RM>effort!
> RM>
> RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
> RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
> RM>
> RM>package version on i386 version on x86-64
> RM>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> RM>net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2
> RM>kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
> RM>glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
>
> Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with
> the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will
> do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
>
> Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
>
> - --
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAFv8pq3bny/5+GAcRAm9+AKCaRHe46+P9XXYXk59TUOK2QJgatQCeMYk+
> 9rXBJR7VOien7a/Qm4cxO/E=
> =4TPZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> From: "Gene C." <czar@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:01:28 -0500
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Tuesday 27 January 2004 18:23, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:18 -0500, Gene C. wrote:
> > > Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of
> > > glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the
> > > x86_64? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to
> > > why.
> >
> > It's required so that you can build a gcc that supports -m32 and thus
> > compile 32bit apps.
>
> OK, I can understand that ... but what if you do not want -m32 support on
> your
> system ... whatever.
>
> Anyway, what I really don't completely understand is how to install
> additional
> packages without screwing things up. OK, the rpm -ivh glibc-devel... did the
> right thing and installed and I am now building gcc.
>
> I just completed building glibc 2.3.2-101.4 for the x86_64 and have
> downloaded
> the i386/i686 packages also. I plan to put these into a single (local)
> repository and then do an upgrade on the x86_64 system using up2date.
> Hopefully up2date will know how to do things "right".
>
> But what if I wanted to do this "manually" with just rpm? How do I do this
> "safely" so that I do not wind up with a system with 64 bit applications and
> 32 bit libraries. Right now my x86_64 system is pure testing so if I screw
> it up it is not a big deal. But this will be an issue later. Whether it has
> been big iron mainframes or small microcomputer, I am more familiar (more
> comfortable) with single architecture systems. Yes, the IA32 systems have
> i686 and athlon packages but they are few and easily understood. If I do not
> do things "right", I could replace stuff in /usr/bin, etc/ with 32 bit
> versions.
>
> Before I started porting nessus to the 64 bit environment, I tried to install
> the 32 bit version. I soon found that the requires 32 bit libraries and it
> was like pulling on a bowl of spaghetti with more and more 32 bit libraries
> required. It became easier to do the port (which has been successfully BTW).
>
> Fedora Core is fairly lean and mean with respect to the 32 bit libraries it
> installs (compared to the two dvd system that SUSE has). So how do we
> install additional 32 bit libraries "safely"? And how do we then maintain it
> when i386/i686/x86_64 packages are updated?
>
> Any guidance will be appreciated.
> --
> Gene
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:06:00 -0500 (EST)
> From: csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx spewed into the bitstream:
>
> >On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
> >
> >RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
> >RM>>
> >RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
> >RM>>
> >RM>>
> >RM>> [updates]
> >RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
> >RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
> >RM>>
> >RM>> It worked fine.
> >RM>>
> >RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
> >RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
> >RM>
> >RM>thank you for doing this. your efforts have already saved me some
> >RM>effort!
> >RM>
> >RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
> >RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
> >RM>
> >RM>package version on i386 version on x86-64
> >RM>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >RM>net-snmp net-snmp-5.1-2.1 net-snmp-5.0.9-2
> >RM>kernel kernel-2.4.22-1.2149 kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
> >RM>glibc glibc-2.3.2-101.4 glibc-2.3.2-101.1
> >
> >Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with
> >the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will
> >do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
> >
> >Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
>
> Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates
> there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
>
>
> - --
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAFycaq3bny/5+GAcRAkfgAJ9j+1p7JSkqN+5+Fn5npTKt3h+ZKQCfa7KN
> IkFr7lKXIYHNHqIszgaANwY=
> =gcPs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:45:51 -0500
> From: Chuck Mead <csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> | On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx spewed into the bitstream:
> |
> |
> | Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates
> | there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
>
> Alright the updates are posted. Here is the appropriate section from my
> yum.conf:
>
> [updates]
> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
> baseurl=http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
>
> Here is the appropriate section from my /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources:
>
> yum updates http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
>
> I don't think the bandwidth will be all that great but maybe someone
> else might grab them and put them on a faster site.
>
> Also... rebuilding net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm fails badly. Here is the error:
>
> gcc -I/usr/include/rpm -DINET6 -O2 -g -pipe -Dlinux -I/usr/include/rpm
> - -o .libs/snmpd snmpd.o ./.libs/libnetsnmpagent.so
> ./.libs/libnetsnmpmibs.so helpers/.libs/libnetsnmphelpers.so
> - -L/usr/lib/lib -lwrap ../snmplib/.libs/libnetsnmp.so -ldl -lrpm -lrpmio
> /usr/lib/libpopt.so -lbz2 -lz -lcrypto -lelf -lm -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
> /usr/lib/libpopt.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[1]: *** [snmpd] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/csm/redhat/BUILD/net-snmp-5.1/agent'
> make: *** [subdirs] Error 1
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
>
>
> RPM build errors:
> ~ Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
>
> I bugzilla'd this already but I have no time to fool around with it as I
> am off to Boston tomorrow morning for a couple of days.
>
> - --
> csm
> Lunar Linux Project Lead
> Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFAFz5/q3bny/5+GAcRAtdpAJ9EFJJYt2uh1lpP0HZ5vebh75SCEgCfbuKL
> zzHbOQDZJKbe72Gwf7u6NPI=
> =C+vx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 12
> Subject: Fedora Bug Day Tomorrow: Jan 28th 2004: Bugzilla versus Mothra
> From: Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:57:55 -0500
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> What:=20
> Fedora Bug Day: General Fedora Triage=20
>
> Why: =20
> Bugs bad...Closing bugs good
>
> Who: =20
> Everybody and anybody who wants to help developers make better use of
> their time. Programming experience, isn't necessary to make a worthwhile
> contribution to the triaging effort. But programmers are welcome to. Who
> knows you might even stumble on a bug you can fix by submitting your own
> patch! For the rest of us, just digging into bugzilla and finding
> bugreports to mark as duplicates can help save developers some time.
>
> How: =20
> Simply pick an existing Fedora Core bug to triage, jump on the=20
> #fedora-bugs during the stated times on Weds Jan 28th and convince
> me that the bug should be closed or marked up as a high priority for
> review.=20
> When:=20
> Jan 28th 9am EST (or right after i get my first cup of coffee) to let's
> say 6pm-ish EST (right before my wife tells me I need to drive her home
> from work). Allow of course for some gaps in between when my boss and
> found my hiding place and needs me to do something.
>
> No Clue What I'm talking about when I say the phrase Fedora Triage?
> Take a quick look at the fedora-triage-list archives:
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/fedora-triage-list/
> These messages should hopefully tell you what its all about in more
> detail:
> http://tinyurl.com/ywma3 - Summary of my vision for Fedora Triage
> http://tinyurl.com/23alw - My short term goals and long term plans
>
> -jef"technically I got this email out on Tuesday"spaleta
>
> --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBAF0FTrWLDmRitRZURAlsYAJ9N0nEIW3BMo0aERFlPplEotS6cwwCePX4D
> i1Bfy1lo4DR42U5/IOyPwTU=
> =FBMi
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL--
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 13
> Subject: anyone using raid?>
> From: jason pearl <jpearl24@xxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Organization:
> Date: 27 Jan 2004 23:09:39 -0700
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> is anyone using a raid card like highpoint rocketraid 454 and have it
> working?
> I can only get it to work on redhat 9 can anyone give me some info. i
> have not found anything at websites. thanks=20
> jason
>
> --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBAF1IiaxRK6/F2TDoRAubfAJ9GZp5FqJL++ahUqX7IVTHYa86WYACfQNri
> R1v4EhcWVFKAH3PbnPpNv08=
> =2azl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP--
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:48:16 +0100
> From: Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306@xxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:20:22 -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > rod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > | The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
> > attachment.
> >
> > bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
> >
> > Stupid viruses...
>
> I disagree. Actually, they've become more clever with recent
> incarnations. Fetching valid e-mail addresses from address books or
> harvesting new addresses from existing mail folders _is_ clever. I could
> puke everytime I realize one of my addresses has been abused by a virus on
> some infected system somewhere on the Internet and when I receive bounced
> messages or quarantine notifications (which are much more stupid than the
> virus).
>
> --
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 15
> From: Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: test
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:56:00 +1000
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Once upon a time Wednesday 28 January 2004 6:48 pm, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > I disagree. Actually, they've become more clever with recent
> > incarnations. Fetching valid e-mail addresses from address books or
> > harvesting new addresses from existing mail folders _is_ clever. I could
> > puke everytime I realize one of my addresses has been abused by a virus on
> > some infected system somewhere on the Internet and when I receive bounced
> > messages or quarantine notifications (which are much more stupid than the
> > virus).
> >
> > --
>
>
> I know what your saying ive been getting a few of these on a domain i used =
> to=20
> manage. it was good to see clamav got it in its definitions quickly.
>
> though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner or=20
> amavais in Fedora somewhere.=20
>
> Dennis
>
> --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Description: signature
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBAF3knGQLnD7l8/OERAhxRAJ42YqGS2rzDzsJGZU4R0/gFYU0kQACeOPQn
> zHm0zZd9cn+MVzf+cVjbMKQ=
> =3Gwk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a--
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:04:48 +0100
> From: "shrek-m@xxxxxx" <shrek-m@xxxxxx>
> To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test)
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> >>though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner or
> >>amavais in Fedora somewhere.
> >>
> >>
>
> my experiences:
>
> http://www.amavis.org/
> i tried it ~2 years agoo, i wasnt impressed and removed it.
>
>
> http://mailscanner.info
> i tried it ~1/2 year agoo, i was impressed.
> easy to install, upgrade, configure, ...
>
> ./install.sh
> [no problems]
> # chkconfig sendmail off
> # service sendmail stop
> # chkconfig MailScanner on
> # service MailScanner start
>
> # upgrade_MailScanner_conf
>
> # rpm -q mailscanner
> mailscanner-4.26.5-1
>
> # rpm -q --changelog mailscanner | grep redhat
> * Fr Jul 19 2002 Richard Keech <rkeech@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> # grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf
> [......]
>
>
> eg.
>
> # grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf | grep -i virus
> Virus Scanning = yes
> Virus Scanners = sophos
> Virus Scanner Timeout = 300
> Silent Viruses = HTML-IFrame All-Viruses
> Still Deliver Silent Viruses = yes
> Deleted Virus Message Report = %report-dir%/deleted.virus.message.txt
> Stored Virus Message Report = %report-dir%/stored.virus.message.txt
> Sender Virus Report = %report-dir%/sender.virus.report.txt
> Notify Senders Of Viruses = no
> Virus Modify Subject = yes
> Virus Subject Text = {Virus?}
> Notice Signature = -- \nMailScanner\nEmail Virus
> Scanner\nwww.mailscanner.info
> Virus Scanner Definitions = %etc-dir%/virus.scanners.conf
>
> $ grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf | grep -i spam
> Spam Header = X-%org-name%-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
> Spam Score Header = X-%org-name%-MailScanner-SpamScore:
> Spam Score Character = s
> SpamScore Number Instead Of Stars = no
> Detailed Spam Report = yes
> Include Scores In SpamAssassin Report = yes
> Spam Modify Subject = yes
> Spam Subject Text = {Spam?}
> High Scoring Spam Modify Subject = yes
> High Scoring Spam Subject Text = {Spam?}
> Spam List Definitions = %etc-dir%/spam.lists.conf
> Spam Checks = yes
> Spam List = ORDB-RBL Infinite-Monkeys # MAPS-RBL+ costs money (except
> .ac.uk)
> Spam Domain List =
> Spam Lists To Reach High Score = 5
> Spam List Timeout = 10
> Max Spam List Timeouts = 7
> Is Definitely Not Spam = %rules-dir%/spam.whitelist.rules
> Is Definitely Spam = no
> Definite Spam Is High Scoring = no
> Use SpamAssassin = yes
> Max SpamAssassin Size = 90000
> Required SpamAssassin Score = 5
> High SpamAssassin Score = 20
> SpamAssassin Auto Whitelist = no
> SpamAssassin Prefs File = %etc-dir%/spam.assassin.prefs.conf
> SpamAssassin Timeout = 40
> Max SpamAssassin Timeouts = 20
> Check SpamAssassin If On Spam List = yes
> Always Include SpamAssassin Report = yes
> Spam Score = yes
> Spam Actions = deliver
> High Scoring Spam Actions = deliver
> Non Spam Actions = deliver
> Sender Spam Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.report.txt
> Sender Spam List Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.rbl.report.txt
> Sender SpamAssassin Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.sa.report.txt
> Inline Spam Warning = %report-dir%/inline.spam.warning.txt
> Recipient Spam Report = %report-dir%/recipient.spam.report.txt
> Log Spam = no
> Log Non Spam = no
> SpamAssassin User State Dir =
> SpamAssassin Install Prefix =
> SpamAssassin Site Rules Dir = /etc/mail/spamassassin
> SpamAssassin Local Rules Dir =
> SpamAssassin Default Rules Dir =
> Debug SpamAssassin = no
>
> --
> shrek-m
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 17
> From: "Denis Croombs" <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test)
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:22:16 -0000
> Reply-To: fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> > >>though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner
> or
> > >>amavais in Fedora somewhere.
> > >>
> > >>
> > http://mailscanner.info
> > i tried it ~1/2 year agoo, i was impressed.
> > easy to install, upgrade, configure, ...
> >
> I can also support mailscanner, I have it on lots of systems and my
> customers systems and it is simply the very best I have come across. Also
> the support on the email list is also very good.
>
> Denis Croombs
> www.just-servers.co.uk
> www.just-hosting.net
>
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
|
