SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2 - VMS

This is a discussion on SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2 - VMS ; In article , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes: >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote: >> In article , Vance Haemmerle writes: >>> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that >>> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

  1. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <_o4sj.3758$R_4.2775@newsb.telia.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes:
    >Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER wrote:
    >> In article , Vance Haemmerle writes:
    >>> Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    >>> madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    >>> distributing my changes?

    >>
    >> Matt (the author) has made MX V5 (know, the one with Anti-SPAM) freeware now.
    >>
    >> Why not take it, and improve it (for all of us)

    >
    >Is the free V5 what is called "V6" ?


    It looks like.
    Matt seems to call it V6 now (to tell, that it now supports I64 as well ;-)
    I don't know if there are any differences to my MX V5.4 (ECO x), will have
    to check myself soon (when my I64 finally boots)...

    --
    Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    E-mail peter@langstoeger.at
    A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist

  2. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > Joseph Huber wrote:
    >> MX 6 is now open source, see
    >> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    >> and
    >> http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006

    ....
    > At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    > My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.


    It could be well worth a look. In the 00README.TXT file, Matt writes:
    "I have removed the kitting for VAX systems, although the source code
    still contains VAX support."

    cu,
    Martin
    --
    One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules!
    One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de
    One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/
    And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de

  3. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > Joseph Huber wrote:
    >> MX 6 is now open source, see
    >> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    >> and
    >> http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006

    ....
    > At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    > My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.


    It could be well worth a look. In the 00README.TXT file, Matt writes:
    "I have removed the kitting for VAX systems, although the source code
    still contains VAX support."

    cu,
    Martin
    --
    One OS to rule them all | Martin Vorlaender | OpenVMS rules!
    One OS to find them | work: mv@pdv-systeme.de
    One OS to bring them all | http://vms.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/
    And in the Darkness bind them.| home: martin.vorlaender@t-online.de

  4. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <61b0liF1u8k6sU5@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)
    >
    > And, before someone asks, yes, I would.
    >


    I do. And I block AOL, Hotmail, Comcast, ...

    Except for a few AOL and Comcast accounts on my whitelist.

    It's just too easy for a spammer to get an account on those systems,
    violate thier rules, throw away the account, get another, ... as
    infinitum.

    Not to mention the number of unsecured PCs on those network, which
    spammers have taken over without thier owner's knowledge or concern.

    "People wouldn't attack your system if you didn't have that firewall."
    8-(


  5. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    In article <61b0liF1u8k6sU5@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > Gee, that looks easy to fix. Block yahoo.com. :-)
    >
    > And, before someone asks, yes, I would.
    >


    I do. And I block AOL, Hotmail, Comcast, ...

    Except for a few AOL and Comcast accounts on my whitelist.

    It's just too easy for a spammer to get an account on those systems,
    violate thier rules, throw away the account, get another, ... as
    infinitum.

    Not to mention the number of unsecured PCs on those network, which
    spammers have taken over without thier owner's knowledge or concern.

    "People wouldn't attack your system if you didn't have that firewall."
    8-(


  6. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    On Feb 11, 5:32 am, Vance Haemmerle
    wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >
    > Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    > up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    > MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    > Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    > by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    > domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    > usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    > IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    > in Google Groups.
    >
    > I made modifications to the anti-relay version of
    > SMTP_SERVER.B32, about 300 lines, and came up with
    > several methods to reduce SPAM as well as added an
    > optional usage of a DNS blackhole list to reject
    > messages from hosts that are in the list. Using all
    > the anti-SPAM messages and the blackhole list
    > "zen.spamhaus.org" my SPAM was reduced by about 85-90%.
    > Since then the SPAM has reduced and now I only get a
    > few a day.
    >
    > I know that rejecting email based on the HELO
    > message isn't good according to the RFCs but looking
    > at what's on the Internet, I see many doing it
    > and the seriousness of the SPAM problem is making
    > it popular.
    >
    > Here is my documentation on how to use it:
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > New SPAM filter functionality for MX 4.2:
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Defines the name of the SPAM DNS Blackhole list to use.
    > MX will take the remote address and check the blackhole
    > list specified. If found on the list, the email will be
    > rejected at the RCPT_TO command with the error:
    >
    > 554 Mail rejected; remote host is listed in SPAM DNS blackhole list <...>
    >
    > where <...> is the value of MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_SPAMCODE
    >
    > Defines which SPAM rules to use in filtering.
    > Value is the sum of the rules as follows:
    >
    > Rule
    > 1 Reject connections which use localhost as the HELO domain and
    > the connection does not originate from 127.0.0.1 or connections
    > which use localhost.localdomain. These will be rejected with
    > the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, localhost usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 2 Reject connections which use your hostname as the HELO domain
    > and who's originating IP does not match. This includes connections
    > using your host IP number. These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, using mine usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 4 Reject connections which do not use a fully qualified domain as
    > the HELO domain. Specifically, the name must contain a "." or it
    > will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 504 Not a fully qualified domain name, usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 8 Reject RCPT_TO addresses who's local part does not contain a ":" and
    > is greater than 12 characters (the max VMS username) for the case where
    > the remote server is not in the relay.dat list (i.e. the RCPT_TO should
    > be directed to the local system). These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 550 Username is not valid on this system.
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.
    >
    > --
    > Vance Haemmerle


    Vance,

    I would like to second Peter's suggestion that this modification be
    checked against the V6 sources. While apparently the kit does not
    exist, we should be able to recompile V6 for VAX and then have all the
    advantages your work and the other improvements that were in the
    interim versions of MX.

    - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

  7. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    On Feb 11, 5:32 am, Vance Haemmerle
    wrote:
    > I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    > latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    > Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >
    > Last summer SPAM seemed to grow enormously, for me
    > up to about 200-300 SPAM messages a day. I used the
    > MX_SMTP_SERVER_DEBUG variable and looked at the traffic.
    > Most of the SPAM messages could be easily detected
    > by bad HELO hostnames (e.g. localhost or my own
    > domain or host or IP) and invalid usernames. Some
    > usernames in SPAM messges were actually usenet message
    > IDs that I could even find in the original usenet post
    > in Google Groups.
    >
    > I made modifications to the anti-relay version of
    > SMTP_SERVER.B32, about 300 lines, and came up with
    > several methods to reduce SPAM as well as added an
    > optional usage of a DNS blackhole list to reject
    > messages from hosts that are in the list. Using all
    > the anti-SPAM messages and the blackhole list
    > "zen.spamhaus.org" my SPAM was reduced by about 85-90%.
    > Since then the SPAM has reduced and now I only get a
    > few a day.
    >
    > I know that rejecting email based on the HELO
    > message isn't good according to the RFCs but looking
    > at what's on the Internet, I see many doing it
    > and the seriousness of the SPAM problem is making
    > it popular.
    >
    > Here is my documentation on how to use it:
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > New SPAM filter functionality for MX 4.2:
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Defines the name of the SPAM DNS Blackhole list to use.
    > MX will take the remote address and check the blackhole
    > list specified. If found on the list, the email will be
    > rejected at the RCPT_TO command with the error:
    >
    > 554 Mail rejected; remote host is listed in SPAM DNS blackhole list <...>
    >
    > where <...> is the value of MX_SMTP_SERVER_DNSBL
    >
    > Logical: MX_SMTP_SERVER_SPAMCODE
    >
    > Defines which SPAM rules to use in filtering.
    > Value is the sum of the rules as follows:
    >
    > Rule
    > 1 Reject connections which use localhost as the HELO domain and
    > the connection does not originate from 127.0.0.1 or connections
    > which use localhost.localdomain. These will be rejected with
    > the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, localhost usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 2 Reject connections which use your hostname as the HELO domain
    > and who's originating IP does not match. This includes connections
    > using your host IP number. These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 554 Fix your HELO domain, using mine usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 4 Reject connections which do not use a fully qualified domain as
    > the HELO domain. Specifically, the name must contain a "." or it
    > will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 504 Not a fully qualified domain name, usually means SPAM.
    >
    > 8 Reject RCPT_TO addresses who's local part does not contain a ":" and
    > is greater than 12 characters (the max VMS username) for the case where
    > the remote server is not in the relay.dat list (i.e. the RCPT_TO should
    > be directed to the local system). These will be rejected with the status:
    >
    > 550 Username is not valid on this system.
    >
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Would people be interested in these new features? I see that
    > madgoat.com no longer exists. What would the authors think of me
    > distributing my changes?
    >
    > I also found a bug in compiling MX on VAX with the BLISS compiler.
    > I had to add the option "/SYNTAX_LEVEL=2" to BFLAGS in DESCRIP.MMS
    > for VAX so that the alias lines compiled without error.
    >
    > --
    > Vance Haemmerle


    Vance,

    I would like to second Peter's suggestion that this modification be
    checked against the V6 sources. While apparently the kit does not
    exist, we should be able to recompile V6 for VAX and then have all the
    advantages your work and the other improvements that were in the
    interim versions of MX.

    - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

  8. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Martin Vorlaender wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >>Joseph Huber wrote:
    >>
    >>>MX 6 is now open source, see
    >>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    >>>and
    >>>http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006

    >
    > ...
    >
    >>At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    >>My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.

    >
    >
    > It could be well worth a look. In the 00README.TXT file, Matt writes:
    > "I have removed the kitting for VAX systems, although the source code
    > still contains VAX support."
    >
    > cu,
    > Martin


    That's good. The release notes for V5.4 said the next version
    would not suppport VAX.

    --
    Vance

  9. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Martin Vorlaender wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >>Joseph Huber wrote:
    >>
    >>>MX 6 is now open source, see
    >>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?s.../02/05/9642981
    >>>and
    >>>http://forums12.itrc.hp.com/service/...readId=1190006

    >
    > ...
    >
    >>At least I was using my changes for the last 7 months.
    >>My SMTP server is on a VAX and I don't think MX 6 supports VAX.

    >
    >
    > It could be well worth a look. In the 00README.TXT file, Matt writes:
    > "I have removed the kitting for VAX systems, although the source code
    > still contains VAX support."
    >
    > cu,
    > Martin


    That's good. The release notes for V5.4 said the next version
    would not suppport VAX.

    --
    Vance

  10. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    >
    > Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    > it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >
    > (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    > but that's another story.)
    >
    > I'd be intrerested in your changes.



    http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html

    --
    Vance


  11. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >
    >> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >
    >
    > Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    > it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >
    > (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    > but that's another story.)
    >
    > I'd be intrerested in your changes.



    http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html

    --
    Vance


  12. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>
    >> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >> but that's another story.)
    >>
    >> I'd be intrerested in your changes.

    >
    >
    > http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >
    > --
    > Vance
    >


    OK, fine.
    I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    Thanks anyway !

    Jan-Erik.


  13. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>
    >>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>
    >> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >> but that's another story.)
    >>
    >> I'd be intrerested in your changes.

    >
    >
    > http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >
    > --
    > Vance
    >


    OK, fine.
    I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    Thanks anyway !

    Jan-Erik.


  14. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm
    wrote:

    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>
    >>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>> but that's another story.)
    >>>
    >>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.

    >> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >> -- Vance
    >>

    >
    > OK, fine.
    > I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    > Thanks anyway !


    I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?

    >
    > Jan-Erik.
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  15. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm
    wrote:

    > Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>
    >>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>> but that's another story.)
    >>>
    >>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.

    >> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >> -- Vance
    >>

    >
    > OK, fine.
    > I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    > Thanks anyway !


    I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?

    >
    > Jan-Erik.
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  16. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>>
    >>>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>>> but that's another story.)
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >>> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >>> -- Vance
    >>>

    >>
    >> OK, fine.
    >> I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    >> Thanks anyway !

    >
    > I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?
    >
    >>
    >> Jan-Erik.
    >>

    >
    >
    >


    The 6.0 rel-notes mentions two "changes" from 5.4, it's
    freeware and there are no supplied VAX build scripts.

    Jan-Erik.

  17. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>>
    >>>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>>> but that's another story.)
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >>> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >>> -- Vance
    >>>

    >>
    >> OK, fine.
    >> I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    >> Thanks anyway !

    >
    > I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?
    >
    >>
    >> Jan-Erik.
    >>

    >
    >
    >


    The 6.0 rel-notes mentions two "changes" from 5.4, it's
    freeware and there are no supplied VAX build scripts.

    Jan-Erik.

  18. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    oh !

    http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4940173



    "Jan-Erik Söderholm" a écrit dans le message de news:
    pFctj.3845$R_4.2714@newsb.telia.net...
    > Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>
    >>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>>>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>>>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>>>> but that's another story.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >>>> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >>>> -- Vance
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> OK, fine.
    >>> I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    >>> Thanks anyway !

    >>
    >> I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Jan-Erik.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The 6.0 rel-notes mentions two "changes" from 5.4, it's
    > freeware and there are no supplied VAX build scripts.
    >
    > Jan-Erik.




  19. Re: SPAM detection for freeware MX 4.2

    oh !

    http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4940173



    "Jan-Erik Söderholm" a écrit dans le message de news:
    pFctj.3845$R_4.2714@newsb.telia.net...
    > Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:57 -0800, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>
    >>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
    >>>>> Vance Haemmerle wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've been using MX 4.2 for almost a decade, with the
    >>>>>> latest patches and the Anti-open relay modifications.
    >>>>>> Is there anyone else out there still using MX 4.2?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, yes, I'm "still" using MX 4.2 since installing
    >>>>> it about 2 weeks ago... :-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (I have been using the 3.x version(s) about 15 yrs ago,
    >>>>> but that's another story.)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'd be intrerested in your changes.
    >>>> http://toyvax.glendale.ca.us/www/mx_spam.html
    >>>> -- Vance
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> OK, fine.
    >>> I have also fetched the 6.0 kit, so we'll see which way I'll go.
    >>> Thanks anyway !

    >>
    >> I wonder if there is any difference between 5.4 and 6.0?
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Jan-Erik.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The 6.0 rel-notes mentions two "changes" from 5.4, it's
    > freeware and there are no supplied VAX build scripts.
    >
    > Jan-Erik.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2