I dont know if I already said this but exim does not support bangpaths but
domainized uucp is no problem.
On 14 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for
Chris Fearnley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I might speculate on my winning sendmail configuration strategy:
ignore the irrelevant (like rule sets).
Say you have three users who have accounts on your system, but their
primary accounts are elsewhere. Now you want their email headers to
be
On Jun 18, Rob Browning wrote
Say you have three users who have accounts on your system, but their
primary accounts are elsewhere. Now you want their email headers to
be rewritten by *sendmail* to appear to come from their other provider
so that it will be correct no matter what email client
On 16 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
I meant the possibility for a customer to request the ISP exim to reject
any mail that comes from, say, savetrees.com. You know, what AOL does,
except I want individual customers to be able to configure individual
lists.
I don't think that is
'Tim Cutts wrote:'
On 14 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Cutts) wrote on 17.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 16 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
I meant the possibility for a customer to request the ISP exim to reject
any mail that comes from, say, savetrees.com. You know, what AOL does,
except I want individual customers
Exim can provide UUCP capabilities. It cannot do bang path routing. I doubt
that anyone is using that though.
--
From: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED];
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Hamm: Exim + Chos standard?
Date: Saturday, June 14
On 16 Jun 1997, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Ofcourse there also needs to be a file (LocalIP with sendmail) to define
IP ranges that may use your SMTP host as a relay - for customers that
use your host as smarthost (Eudora, pegasus, netscape, sendmail null
clients etc).
Well, exim certainly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) wrote on 16.06.97 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[exim]
I also hope to figure out how to get exim to have a customer-configurable
spam block when acting as MX for those customers - I
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for sites that use UUCP (like me). Right now, I am using
On Jun 14, John Goerzen wrote
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for sites that use UUCP
On Jun 14, Mark Baker wrote
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Heiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
: be the standard mailer for hamm:
... hmmm, ``never change a running system'', and smail _is_
On 14 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for sites that use
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Christian Hudon wrote:
To make this clearer, the only thing that would happen it that exim would
be marked with priority 'important' and smail with priority 'extra'..
And yes, I think it'd be a good idea, assuming that exim's .forward syntax
is backward-compatible with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christian Hudon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And yes, I think it'd be a good idea, assuming that exim's .forward syntax
is backward-compatible with sendmail/smail's syntax.
Yes and no. Exim will understand ones from sendmail or smail; obviously once
you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 15.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for sites that use UUCP (like me).
I expect that you will admit that UUCP sites are a minority. I use UUCP,
I don't know about him, but I
On Sun, Jun 15 1997 11:20 BST Philip Hands writes:
Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
useless for sites that use UUCP (like me).
I expect that you will admit that UUCP sites are a minority. I use UUCP, but
I don't think that the majority of users
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
David Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
exim should be able to parse simple bang-paths IMO (host!user), since most
UUCP paths
It can read them with rewriting; it can't rewrite them but you could
probably use a perl script or something to generate them on
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[exim]
I also hope to figure out how to get exim to have a customer-configurable
spam block when acting as MX for those customers - I think they'll like
that very much, and it sure looks as if that should be possible.
Oh
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As several people already pointed out, the phone costs in Europe are rather
high;
so that people like to use the transfer agent with the shortest connection
duration,
which is doubtless UUCP.
But this requires an MTA which is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, SirDibos wrote:
I second the motion. Smail has been nothing but a headache for me. I was
*so* releived to get fetchpop working, so that I could bypass the need to
pass my mail thru port 25 on my own machine for delivery.
pine +
Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin)
To what are you referring ?
Probably what was reported on the djb-qmail mailing list, where you
start sending data, but no CR-LF, down the line and qmail malloc's
some memory for it, then malloc's some more, and some more, etc. I
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW: There will be a completely GPLed procmail in hamm soon. Could we make
it the standard MDA as well? :-) [ Red-Hat *already* does this ]
Not if we adopt exim as the standard MTA: although exim works very
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim.
I agree entirely. Though we should keep smail for people who use smail
elsewhere and don't want to switch.
- Exim is scalable from running from inetd
Sourcecode is available for chos and it has been GPLed by the author after
several people talked with him (among them me on behalf of Debian).
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, SirDibos wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, SirDibos wrote:
Also we might think about replacing lilo with chos as the standard boot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Koch) wrote on 13.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Qmail is most definitely capable of UUCP (I use it here), and AFAIK bang
paths can be done with rmail.
With what addition? Last time I really tried it, it was only working
Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me remind you of one thing...
Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin)
To what are you referring ?
Probably what was reported on the djb-qmail mailing list, where you
start sending data, but no CR-LF, down the line and qmail malloc's
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, SirDibos wrote:
speaking of which. if I packaged up fetchpop, could it get included in
debian? I much prefer it to fetchmail. if only fetchmail had a -o or a
localfolder option! Also, fetchpop guides you thru creation of the
appropriate config file the first time you run
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 13.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin) and Exim are not
capable of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries
I second the motion. Smail has been nothing but a headache for me. I was
*so* releived to get fetchpop working, so that I could bypass the need to
pass my mail thru port 25 on my own machine for delivery.
pine + fetchpop + procmail serves all my email needs. (Im not up 24/7, so
its ok ;))
Let me remind you of one thing...
Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin)
To what are you referring ?
and Exim are not capable
of UUCP or even bang paths!
Qmail is most definitely capable of UUCP (I use it here), and AFAIK bang paths
can be done with rmail.
So a lot of those
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, SirDibos wrote:
Also we might think about replacing lilo with chos as the standard boot
loader from harddisk. lilo always is a difficulty for newbies, chos
offers:
Sounds good to me. I am an advocate of many solutions I hate to see
any software get dropped
Christoph Lameter:
Also we might think about replacing lilo with chos as the standard boot
loader from harddisk. lilo always is a difficulty for newbies, chos
offers:
- Menudriven Boot Loader (Cryptic Prompt only on demand)
- Highly Customizable Color Menus.
- Simple configuration in
From: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sourcecode is available for chos and it has been GPLed by the author after
several people talked with him (among them me on behalf of Debian).
Hooray!
Is the GPL-ed version and its source in a Debian package yet?
Thanks
Bruce
--
SirDibos:
Whoa, hold on. Apparently, source code isnt available for chos. So, I
take my words back. By all means, lets keep it in the distribution, but
by no means let it be the primary boot loader.
Actually, they're still both in there, and I still maintain wordplay, though
I don't even
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Lameter) wrote on 12.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
- Exim is based on the same concepts as smail.
- It is developed with newer concepts in mind
- Exim is
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Mark Baker wrote:
:
:In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
: Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin) and Exim are not capable
: of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries where phone
: costs are
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both qmail (which proved insecure most evil grin) and Exim are not capable
of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries where phone
costs are terrible (like in Germany) still use it and they WILL
It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
be the standard mailer for hamm:
- Exim is based on the same concepts as smail.
- It is developed with newer concepts in mind
- Exim is scalable from running from inetd to delivering hundredths of
thousands of messages a
Also we might think about replacing lilo with chos as the standard boot
loader from harddisk. lilo always is a difficulty for newbies, chos
offers:
- Menudriven Boot Loader (Cryptic Prompt only on demand)
- Highly Customizable Color Menus.
- Simple configuration in passwd style file
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
I seem to remember reading somewhere in the exim docs that some simple
bang addresses are understood by exim. Not sure about that.
You can cope with host!user by using a rewrite rule, not anything much more
On Jun 12, Christoph Lameter wrote
: It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
: be the standard mailer for hamm:
... hmmm, ``never change a running system'', and smail _is_ running.
And I you're able to read some docs, it's possible to setup this
think quite
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not that anyone necessarily has the time, but would it be worthwhile to
create some documents listing categories of packages, comparing and
contrasting the competing packages?
Right. I'm about to help someone set up a relatively busy mailserver,
and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Heiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
: be the standard mailer for hamm:
... hmmm, ``never change a running system'', and smail _is_ running.
No-one's suggesting
In your email to me, Rob Browning, you wrote:
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not that anyone necessarily has the time, but would it be worthwhile to
create some documents listing categories of packages, comparing and
contrasting the competing packages?
Right. I'm about to
45 matches
Mail list logo
