On M 1 Sep, 2008, at 17:19 , Francesco Pasqualini wrote:
Probem solved.
I reactivated the secondary/backup MX ( Exim version 4.50 ) server
and now
the messages are arriving without problems trough the secondary MX.
May be there are some strange network problems between some net or
On T 15 Jul, 2008, at 15:18 , talat wrote:
Hi Peter,
Currently the router i have is given below.
ditch_spam:
driver = redirect
allow_fail
data = :blackhole:
condition = ${if {$spam_score_int}{${lookup mysql{select
users.sa_refuse *
10 from users,domains \
where localpart =
On F 11 Jul, 2008, at 12:28 , b-BAY wrote:
2008/7/11 b-BAY [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the exim logs I don't see any errors but on the aspemail I get the
following
error,
2008/07/03 18:40:38.058 File:20080703-18205936-36c0c-0 From:bla
@bla.com
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAILURE: Sending to
On S 29 Jun, 2008, at 23:16 , Toshio Kumagai wrote:
Hello all,
This is test mail.
Please ignore it.
No mail received since 6/28 18:00(JST)
Impatient! What do you expect? It's just one day and it's the week end!
Giuliano
--
## List details at
On 5 Jun, 2008, at 18:07 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heiko,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, exim -v -bv address, will get the IP
addresses at the command line, but I was hoping to get them from
within an
ACL. Possible? (short of using ${run{exim -v -bv...}} ).
Dan
dnsdb lookup is perhaps
On 29 Sep 2007, at 16:26, Dean Brooks wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 02:07:11PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
A simple recipient callout does not suffice if the address we
forward to is valid but the server rejects the mail based on content.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)
I think random callouts should use a recipient that is random but
uniquely determined by some local and remote characteristics like,
for instance, local and remote hostnames. Otherwise random callout
will fail when confronted to greylisting.
I have also noticed a potential problem with
On 14 Jun 2007, at 17:09, Marc Sherman wrote:
I've also heard rumours (but I can't recall where I read them) that
they
don't blackhole mail sent with Outlook, but they do blackhole mail
sent
with Thunderbird. I guess there would exist a set of header
If that was proven true, I think
On 13 Jun 2007, at 04:34, Shine, Gary wrote:
We need a rewrite on the senders address.
Example uses
carz.com (local domain to user who has a groupwise system)
how can this be a local domain? it has whois (Gary Snyder) and MX
(mail.carz.com)
Carz2.com (remote domain to user to mail
On 12 Jun 2007, at 17:15, Thomas Jacob wrote:
I use it to exempt MTAs with a valid helo string from some other
processing, and for that a check helo str=simple reverse lookup
would be nice thing to have.
Is there perhaps a way to achieve this using other Exim features?
with Exim you can do
On 2 Jan 2007, at 06:25, Joachim Boltz wrote:
due to privacy issues I want to strip the IP address of authenticated
users from the received header. Currently i am adding a special header
in a content ACL when i receive mail from authenticated users:
well, read the current thread by subject
On 31 Dec 2006, at 18:54, Victor Gras wrote:
Now I'm trying to add a condition, so when $sender_helo_name =
USER223 then headers will be removed and adding an special header.
On the contrary, all headers will be added.
remote_smtp:
driver = smtp
headers_remove = Received
On 14 Dec 2006, at 04:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
denymessage= DNSBL listed at $dnslist_domain\n
$dnslist_text
dnslists = zen.spamhaus.org : \
list.dsbl.org : \
bl.spamcop.net : \
On 13 Dec 2006, at 21:35, Rob Munsch wrote:
[...]
Poor choice in ISP :) . Specific example: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is trying to
mail someone in this office. Foo.com is coming up on a SORBS hit
and so
all mail from foo.com is being blocked. i do NOT want to stop
referencing SORBS, and i
On 11 Dec 2006, at 16:34, Torsten Mueller wrote:
Thanks Marc and Magnus !
It works perfect.
[...]
For the records:
deny message = Please use your mobile number i.e.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \n\
where 49179123456781 is your mobile number
condition = ${if
Hello,
I would like your opinion on a possible envelope and headers
rewriting for authenticated outgoing messages in a way analogous to
VERP (I believe).
Story: when giving a contact address to an unknown recipient I always
(almost) use a return address with encoded the domain of the
On 25 Nov 2006, at 12:52, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Yes. Except if there is a bounce (an indirect one), then it will
revert to
full VERPs including the username. Sorry. Do you perform any
filtering on the
envelope sender at SMTP time or would it work even better filtering
on the
List-ID
On 25 Nov 2006, at 03:58, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Reading the Mailman code, I wonder if the setup described in the
HOWTO works
as intended. The thing is that, IIUC, the VERP-checking code in
I'll study later what you have said here...
Now I'll try something more advanced with the lists.
Hello, I have encountered a delivery error with an MX that does not
seem to be properly configured, and at the same time I noticed that
exim *seems* to disregard lower numbered MXes.
These are the log lines:
2006-10-11 12:12:33 1GXazW-000KlD-1o = xx @repubblica.it
R=dnslookup
On 21 Sep 2006, at 14:53, Patrik Jansson wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006, at 13:37, Patrik Jansson wrote:
SenderHost Sender Address Recipient Address
Local * * no authentication
* local domain* authentication required
* not in local domain
On 19 Sep 2006, at 13:37, Patrik Jansson wrote:
Hi,
I need some help configuring exim. I want the following rules:
SenderHostSender Address Recipient Address
Local * * no authentication
* local domain* authentication required
* not
On 22 May 2006, at 11:28, Lekshmi A. R wrote:
It is working if I give as
require verify= sender
condition = ${if eq{$sender_address_local_part}
{vinodgm} \
{yes} {no} }
instead of
require verify= sender
condition = ${if
On 21 May 2006, at 15:37, Theo de Morée wrote:
Hi,
My mail ACL is as follows:
acl_check_mail:
require verify = sender
drop condition = ${if eq{$sender_address_data}{$authenticated_id}
{no} {yes} }
message = Please authenticate first to use this mail address
accept
On 21 May 2006, at 15:48, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
I do not think that using the deny verb is in general a good idea.
I clearly meant drop where I wrote deny.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki
On 21 Mar 2006, at 18:34, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 01:11:19PM +, Matthew Frost wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:13:55AM +, Philip Hazel wrote:
I have just made a candidate release for 4.61 available here:
OS/Makefile-FreeBSD needs an -lutil added to LIBS=
hostlist relay_hosts = net-lsearch;/etc/virtual/pophosts : 127.0.0.1
hostlist whitelist_hosts = lsearch;/etc/virtual/whitelist_hosts
hostlist whitelist_hosts_ip = net-lsearch;/etc/virtual/whitelist_hosts
in your acl I do not see the sections that refer to these lists of
authorised hosts.
On 15 Mar 2006, at 13:58, Silmar A. Marca wrote:
I need to use match_ip to search ips of interfaces.
In example:
srs_condition = ${if match_ip {$interface_address} {\
${lookup dnsdb{: defer_never,a=\
${lookup dnsdb{:
On 14 Mar 2006, at 03:52, Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Monday 06 March 2006 05:16 pm, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Has anybody delivery problems to despammed.com?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
host mail.despammed.com [65.112.71.26
On 12 Mar 2006, at 21:09, Troy Engel wrote:
Maybe you could get this as a FAQ/cookbook entry? Lemme see if I
can write it up...
may I make 2 or 3 observations?
== snip ==
Q: How can I send a nicely formatted auto-response email message to
one time use (tear off) email addresses, such
Hello, I am trying to determine if this error, which happens randomly
and fortunately not often, is caused by some data corruption on the
wire (so to speak, it would probably be some firewall appliance at my
provider network, a farm of virtual servers).
I have found reference to this
Just forgot to say that the occurrence of the error above in my
latest test(s) is after the SSL connection has been established:
2 11 0.3443 (0.0175) SC application_data
---
250-ns.teatridithalia.org Hello
On 11 Mar 2006, at 15:52, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
SSL_set_accept_state
ok, ignore SSL_set_accept_state.
Perhaps there is no way to clear this problem, as the error returned is:
#define SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL 5 /* look at error stack/
return value/errno */
while the error
On 11 Mar 2006, at 19:45, My BSD wrote:
Thank you for your reply Nigel.
I was actually not asking about Maildir names, rather, the names of
the
message files that exim saves or writes in the cur subdirectory
of the Maildir.
and Nigel was indeed meaning filenames (an Imap server does
Exim treats remote 552 (quota) errors as permanent, they should be
treated as temporary errors instead, shouldn't they?
This gives some problems with mailman, as it seems unable to parse
the DSN and find that the error was indeed temporary. It would be
nice to have exim treat them as
On 6 Mar 2006, at 17:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 06.03.2006 16:58:47:
Exim treats remote 552 (quota) errors as permanent, they should be
treated as temporary errors instead, shouldn't they?
5xx errors are always permanent, that's why it starts with 5 ;)
552 is
Has anybody delivery problems to despammed.com?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
host mail.despammed.com [65.112.71.26]: 550 5.7.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Relaying denied. IP name lookup failed
[81.174.30.132]
I do not
On 26 Feb 2006, at 05:12, John W. Baxter wrote:
Here, we have elected to relax the requirement for the purpose of
flagging
suspicious servers, accepting any result from reverse lookup as less
suspicious than no result. We do that with a Python daemon which
follows
the rules we want to
On 18 Feb 2006, at 01:53, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
But it would be better to replicate B's user list to A, so A will not
accept such mail any more. Otherwise you'll create colleral spam.
that's the kind way of putting it. Likely and hopefully you'll end up
on some blacklist. Too much load on B?
On 21 Feb 2006, at 01:18, John W. Baxter wrote:
On 2/20/06 2:04 PM, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 20:58 +, Peter Bowyer wrote:
verify = recipient/callout
One should never say the above without explicitly including the
'use_sender' option -- since
because of this thread I downloaded again the exim source tarball
(the bz2 one) and noticed that its size has changed from the one I
downloaded the around the 1st of December.
The size of exim-4.60.tar.bz2 was 1554749, now it is 1556020. I
supposed it has been re-compressed, but why?
Would
On 14 Feb 2006, at 16:24, Igor Karpov wrote:
ok, I have this file among my distfiles, so I really don't need to
download it. I only wanted to warn others, so I've tried to
download it from two different boxes with different connections to
the Net and got the same result on both ones. BTW,
On 8 Feb 2006, at 03:50, W B Hacker wrote:
urd465/tcpURL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
do they mean rendezvous? (and shouldn't it be bonjour anyway?)
g
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use
On 6 Feb 2006, at 13:34, Philip Hazel wrote:
The reason for the existence of dns_check_names_pattern is that some
resolvers give (gave?) temporary errors instead of no such record
when
presented with a name containing strange characters. There shouldn't
actually be a need for
On 20 Jan 2006, at 01:55, Chris Knadle wrote:
Anyway, in a router:
local_part_suffix = -*
local_part_suffix_optional
will do what you want for determining what a local_part is, then you
can do what lookup you find more suitable to determine if a
local_part is valid.
I note that your
On 20 Jan 2006, at 12:19, Tony Finch wrote:
There is a callout cache which should minimize this effect.
I was going to remark that too, but is it going to cache negative
results? I would not say so. Then, what is the use of the cache since
most, if not all, genuine attempts, will happen
On 19 Jan 2006, at 20:21, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote:
Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using
Postfix
that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards
after the
strange, I got this when I attempted delivery of this message:
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host sesame.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.41]: 550 Administrative
prohibition
was it for the presence of the string spam in the To:?
On 18 Jan 2006, at 07:50, [EMAIL
On 18 Jan 2006, at 16:29, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
strange, I got this when I attempted delivery of this message:
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data:
host sesame.csx.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.41]: 550 Administrative
prohibition
On 11 Jan 2006, at 15:18, Bradley Walker wrote:
http://www.modemnet.net/spam/
apart from not returning the TXT DNS record, you could at least give
a working URL.
g
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please
On 11 Jan 2006, at 15:18, Bradley Walker wrote:
domainlist local_domains = lsearch;/etc/virtual/domains
domainlist relay_domains = lsearch;/etc/virtual/domains : localhost
mmm, relay_domains is local_domains + localhost? Do you *relay* for
localhost??
Honestly, I do not see the reason for
On 10 Jan 2006, at 12:07, Norton, Ian wrote:
We're using Exim 4.52 with procmail 3.22 with procmail set as
the MDA. Filesystem quotas are being used to control mailbox
size, but this is resulting in an undesirable error.
If a user is over quota and procmail has failed to deliver a
message,
On 9 Jan 2006, at 14:53, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Chris Corbyn wrote:
And you should really use a valid return address...
--- snip ---
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a
On 9 Jan 2006, at 21:56, Michael Neurohr wrote:
Hi,
I'm using Exim 4.50 with Courier IMAP.
Is it possible to save mails which were sent via SMTP in user's
sent-mail
directory?
certainly it is. It should be the client application making the copy
though, since you use IMAP.
If you want to
On 8 Jan 2006, at 16:01, Dave Lugo wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Marc Sherman wrote:
^
dunno why I have that in there, should probably go back into
the config and see if it's just a stupid typo or cut/paste
from the last time I was working on those bits...
The leading
On 8 Jan 2006, at 20:51, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
do you do sender callout? If yes then you have found the answer.
There's no point in doing sender callout and then block the callout
because you do not like it... or better, there is a point, and that
is to hit your foot with the spade
On 9 Jan 2006, at 01:00, Marc Perkel wrote:
I don't know if the ACLs have this but here's what I want to do. I
want to test to see if a directory exists and if it doesn't I want
to jump past a dozen other tests to some label. Is there any kind
of goto label in ACLs?
e.g.
warn
On 7 Jan 2006, at 04:31, Derrick MacPherson wrote:
I understand why mail can get rejected, I know about recip
verification etc. Off another system, very basic exim config, no
sql. I created a test account called dlm - with home dir not
created. I sent a test message, here's the log
On 7 Jan 2006, at 08:59, Marc Perkel wrote:
So - match is case insensitive. How do you make it case sensitive?
Thanks in advance.
since when? It is a regular expression match, by default case sensitive.
If you meant the opposite, then the answer is (?i)
g
--
## List details at
On 7 Jan 2006, at 23:02, Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Saturday 07 January 2006 08:17 am, Marc Sherman wrote:
Do you mean something like:
domainlist local_domains = @mx_any
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that for all outgoing email
originating on the server, exim would check for an MX
On 8 Jan 2006, at 01:52, Jeff Lasman wrote:
On Saturday 07 January 2006 04:17 pm, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
perhaps it's because it is too late, but I miss your point. The first
router is usually:
dnslookup:
[...]
and this does exactly what, in my current understanding, you say.
As far
On 4 Jan 2006, at 05:08, Mark Edwards wrote:
Getting back to this thread...
Nobody has really understood my question, I think. I do have a tls
on connect server on port 465. It works great, as long as the OE
Mac client is set to port 465. However, in the default setting, if
you
On 4 Jan 2006, at 08:18, Robert Cates wrote:
Hi,
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.0.4 with my Exim 4.54 server, but
SpamAssassin is
checking and adding it's headers even with outgoing mail. My logic
tells me
that's not correct, but I don't know how to change this behaviour.
Below is
the
On 3 Jan 2006, at 13:43, Adrian wrote:
Hi,
I have a gateway mail server which scans and filters messages
and then passes them onto an exim server... I've applied the
following ACL on the exim server to stop it accepting any mail
that isn't from the gateway or someone who has
On 3 Jan 2006, at 17:35, Philip Hazel wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, John W. Baxter wrote:
Your deny looks right, but I've been around computers for a long
time (since
1957, not counting looking over work my mother brought home before
that),
and I *still* get into trouble combining negative
On 3 Jan 2006, at 01:55, xyon wrote:
Ah! Excellent idea.
I was running clamav as exim's user and adding it to the exim's group.
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 11:25 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
as simple as usermod -G Debian-exim clamav
and then restarting clamav/exim4. Worked for me with a
On 1 Jan 2006, at 16:46, Vladimir Sharun wrote:
Philip Hazel wrote:
[...]
PH What are the Exim log lines for the sending Exim host?
Do not understand. This ? :
SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host
mxs.ukr.net [212.42.65.66]: 421 too many
messages in this
On 29 Dec 2005, at 17:16, Philip Hazel wrote:
Odd. I'll investigate that one. It should be giving the IP address
(and
from localhost it should be 127.0.0.1).
what about batched smtp? But the OP should know how he of his users
submit, I guess.
g
--
## List details at
On 25 Dec 2005, at 13:40, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:38:05 +0300, Êîâàëåíêî Èâàí [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
got question : due to latest policy of SpamCop they do not allow
traditional auto responders
(http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html)
Spamcop is a bunch of
On 28 Dec 2005, at 01:55, Bill wrote:
However, this brings up another question. If I still have smtp05-08
in my relay_from_hosts list, why am I getting these strange errors
in my logs? Is this some sort of exploit or an anomaly in the code?
take the names out of the relay_from_hosts list
On 24 Dec 2005, at 16:29, Marc Sherman wrote:
Коваленко Иван wrote:
So the question is how to configure exim not to return reciept of
failed forwards to another hosts after accepting it for delivery.
You mis-read the spamcop page you linked to. Once a message is
accepted
for delivery,
sorry, but a minor screwup in my home server, skillfully performed
at 2:30 am, just to fix my local sender verification, has caused the
first bounces from my server in three years! You will have not
notices, but the listserver yes...
This is just to prove that if one pulls exim
While I am abandoning the idea of a strict authenticated sender for
the moment, I have come across something puzzling. You know that:
+---
--+
|verify_only | Use: routers** | Type: boolean |
Default:
On 16 Dec 2005, at 09:18, Adam Funk wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2005 09:11, Luca Bertoncello wrote:
I sayd some weeks ago an RFC that says that an SMTP-Server **MUST**
have static IP.
I forgot this RFC. Could someone say me which RFC say that?
There is no such RFC. MUST have static IP
On 15 Dec 2005, at 09:28, Êîâàëåíêî Èâàí wrote:
Yeah, thats it.
I wouldn't say so:
But for your goals it can be more suitable to use it in hostlist.
ut hello,
ut you mean this?!
ut ###
ut acl_check_rcpt
ut # Deny Hosts without reverse DNS
ut warn message =
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 14:54 +0100, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Philip Hazel wrote:
probably nothing. It says charset=UTF-8 in the document meta, so, IIRW,
that should override whatever the web server says
Thanks Tony, I have a working configuration now, not clean but apparently
effective. The basic verification rules it satisfies are:
1) a locally acceptable address (anything that gives a 250 Accepted
response) must be a LHS in an alias file
2) an authenticated submitted envelope sender must:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
unable to set gid=6 or uid=501 (euid=25)
known problem, but it only happens on 10.4.3 and:
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root mail 823628 Dec 8 16:57 exim-4.60-2
Well, non-root partitions are mounted nosuid. I am pretty sure that it
used to work
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Well, non-root partitions are mounted nosuid. I am pretty sure that it used
to work in the past, but that might well be even before 10.3 days.
one more point, it appear that non-root partitions are suid on 10.3.9.
So this might be as well
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Giuliano Gavazzi skrev:
In short, how do I detect that a redirect router has successfully
redirected an address?
Suggestion: Set address_data in the redirect routers (make sure that you
have preconditions
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Some small suggestions, to improve the neatness...
[...]
local_parts = lsearch;DOMAINS_DIR/$domain/alias
address_data = ${extract{field}{$address_data}} aliased=$local_part_data
data
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
And what's your address_data good for? $sender_address stays the same
for the whole message, so you can use it in the transport. And you never
modify return_path, so you don't even have to explicitely specify it.
the problem is in the
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
IIRW when I wrote it I had to save the sender address for the
return path, because of the
errors_to = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Um, okay, seems to be necessary then (I'm a little lost in the whole
concept
unable to set gid=6 or uid=501 (euid=25)
known problem, but it only happens on 10.4.3 and:
-rwsr-xr-x 1 root mail 823628 Dec 8 16:57 exim-4.60-2
this is affecting clearly local deliveries on this test machine and
restarting exim (after kill -1 it loses the ability of opening port 25).
Sorry the quick'n'dumb question.
In short, how do I detect that a redirect router has successfully
redirected an address?
I only accept a local recipient if it is an alias, this is because of the
way I handle virtual domains. Each domain has got its alias file (plus a
server wide alias file for
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Fred Viles wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 at 15:52, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote about
[exim] how to detect if address ali:
| Sorry the quick'n'dumb question.
| In short, how do I detect that a redirect router has successfully
| redirected an address?
There's probably several
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Could you post your routers section?
sorry, it's a bit of a mess, but I post it anyway (this is not on a
production server!)
I include the transport section too. (I should include also some ACLs,
the ones for local sender verification)
Thanks
begin
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Could you post your routers section?
sorry, it's a bit of a mess, but I post it anyway (this is not on a
production server!)
Um, I'm not sure what you are trying to do with all this routers.
Your system_aliases_unspec
in doc/spec.txt
$original_domain
[...]
If new an address is created by means of a deliver command in a system
I presume it should be: If a new address is created ...
(The original could be seen as poetic licence)
Same correction under:
$original_local_part
Giuliano
--
## List details
Hello, long time...
apologies if this has been reported already
building exim on MacOSX10.4.3:
gcc_select
Current default compiler:
gcc version 4.0.0 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5026)
I get plenty of:
cc dk.c
In file included from exim.h:23,
from dk.c:13:
os.h:35:1: warning:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Philip Hazel wrote:
./doc/ChangeLog:PH/17 Defined BIND_8_COMPAT in the Darwin os.h file.
./doc/ChangeLog:27. Added -DBIND_8_COMPAT to the CLFAGS setting for
Darwin.
I have no access to a Darwin host. I just put in what other people tell
me to...
I guess I should
On 20 Sep 2005, at 09:52, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Out of interest why not FreeBSD?
the budget is small (I do it for free) and for other reasons it must
be hosted in rented space and not in house. So I have to go for a
virtual server. The one I've found for the moment in Italy is the
On 20 Sep 2005, at 03:34, Paul Johnson wrote:
My personal preference would have been FreeBSD as I have some
experience with it (and indirectly as a MacOSX administrator). If
anyone has knowledge of a virtual hosting facility in Italy
supporting it please email me off list.
I smell spam.
I am going run a server on a virtual hosting facility and am forced
to use some flavour of Linux.
The options are:
- Linux Fedora
- Debian 3.1
- SuSE Linux 9.2
which one in your opinion is easier to configure the usual (for me)
way as I am used to install packages with configure (if
On 20 Sep 2005, at 02:32, Timothy Spear wrote:
Having used both Debian and Fedora, I found Debian much easier to
install
and administer than Fedora. The majority of the problems I have
seen posted
in regards to Debian have been mostly related to Debian using exim
as the
default MTA
On 21 Jul 2005, at 03:58, John W. Baxter wrote:
On 7/20/05 10:11 AM, Michael Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those of you who didn't know, with the release of Tiger (or
possibly a bit earlier), there is the possibility of a case sensitive
HFS+ journaling filesystem.
But the original
On 16 Jul 2005, at 18:23, Marc Perkel wrote:
I've decided to (at least attempting to) convert from a patched
version of WU-IMAP to Dovecot. The reason I'm choosing Dovecot is
because it's easiest to convert what I have already to it. I may
eventually convert to Courier but Courier is
Hello, when asked to implement a vacation autoresponder (no comments
please, and it's for one user only, for a short period, and he does
not receive spam anymore) I have used the recipe that has been
discussed here some time ago (and corrected some small mistakes),
whose author I forget.
I
On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:56, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
Hello, when asked to implement a vacation autoresponder (no
comments please, and it's for one user only, for a short period,
and he does not receive spam anymore) I have used the recipe that
has been discussed here some time ago
On 14 Jul 2005, at 17:25, Philip Hazel wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Reinhard Haller wrote:
Seems my DNS is swinging between SERVFAIL and NXDOMAIN.
At 09:24 the return was NXDOMAIN
at 09:33 it was SERVFAIL
Are you sure you were asking the same server? Maybe the primary and
secondary
On 13 Jul 2005, at 11:26, Reinhard Haller wrote:
Alan J. Flavell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12.07.2005 15:56
That's somewhat churlish. I've frequently encountered situations
which give SERVFAIL one day (with a 4xx response) and Unrouteable
(with a 5xx response) on another day.
It's better!
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
