rhcom.linux at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 11:42:24 PST 2015
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:20:53PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> I used the last (#3) of my supply of L440GX+ 'Lancewood' motherboards,
> in order to minimise introduction of new variables. It turned out that
> two in a row had both gotten fried, in different VA Linux Systems 2230
> chassises, consecutively, in the two consecutive hardware failures.
Ah, down to the 'nitty gritty' then.
> I didn't use the 'new hardware' for reasons I explained to you on a
> couple of occasions, as that would defeat the purpose of its purchase,
> and because I had eminently usable used (but power-sucking and very
> noisy) Dell Poweredge 1850 and 2850 (P4) rackmount servers standing by.
> Which is what I explained to you earlier, so I find it strange that you
> keep coming back to 'Did you use the new hardware?'
I'm always hopeful you'll come up with an 'off the hook' solution that I know
will rival 90%+ of what others are doing with the same hardware. Most people do
the 'same old thing' but you, ha, I know you would come up with something
The old hardware you're using has been around for a while, applied by thousands,
with treasure troves of data one can easily dig up; it's history. However, when
you do 'finally' dig that stuff out and set it up, you're going to do something
with that 'modern' hardware that _most likely_ no one has ever considered because
you have _decades_ of knowledge and experience to recall and apply. I'll bet
dollars to doughnuts it's going to be something no one is going to be able to
read from a blog post or any other internet source and it's going to be
brilliant because it will have solid, proven engineering concepts applied.
That's why I keep asking.
However, I know you have your own directives and prorities so I just keep
waiting. Needless to say, anxious to see what you come up with.
> Anyway, I hope you have someone who's an expert on effective, modern
> antispam using Postfix. It'd be a research project for me to re-develop
> that information, and I'm not doing that at the moment, as my solution
> suffices for my needs.
Eh, I'll figure something out. Kick it around for a while. Try something stupid
and trivial that may or may not work. If it doesn't, I'll clean up the mess and
try something else; I'm not overly concerned.
> There is a great deal of really bad advice about antispam out there,
> such as the many people who think it's a good idea to _not_ do primary
> antispam processing during the SMTP conversation before issuing a 220 or
> 45x or 55x response. Good luck.
I know you've been doing this _very_ successfully for a long time and seen a lot
of solutions, both good and bad, come and go. I'm just glad I asked otherwise I
wouldn't have thought of 'double filtering' but it makes sense. I'll poke around
and see what others have done then chuck some options around and see what you
and others might think. It's not a rush thing; just a 'tinker toy'.
EFF ID: 1731778
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has limits."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/attachments/20150124/ab3e85c7/attachment.bin
More information about the svlug