Rask Ingemann Lambertsen writes: > CNAME lookup failed temporarily. > Only two addresses to guess from. qmail 1.03 skips CNAME lookups for sender addresses. Why am I still seeing requests for features that I added in 1997? Is it really so hard to imagine that qmail has changed since you installed it? It's particularly harmful for the qmail community when people complain about compatibility problems that were solved a long time ago: ... It took me three weeks to get everything switched from /var/mail and .forward to ~/Mailbox and .qmail; I don't recommend it if you have lots of users ... Out-of-date statements like this are the only reason that Wietse Venema has been able to get away with bullshit like ``qmail forces users to change how they use the mail system.'' ---Dan
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Peter C. Norton
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Vendors and tied hands Len Budney
- Re: Vendors and tied hands Edward S. Marshall
- rblsmtpd error codes D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail johnjohn
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Example of the anti-fax effect D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Sam
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Russell Nelson
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Scott Schwartz
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Mate Wierdl
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Bart Blanquart
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
