On Tue, 18 May 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote: > Actually it extends into a support issue as well. There are regular issues > that come up with inetd and tcpwrappers and a few other things and switching > to tcpserver solves all of them and in a more robust fashion. So in this > case it really is developer's choice. If you want to use an alternate method > you'll find very little support. It's in the FAQ. What else do you want? BTW if someone wants to do something another way, maybe s/he knows the solution better. -- Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Anand Buddhdev
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Jos Backus
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficien... Balazs Nagy
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Jos Backus
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Balazs Nagy
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Jos Backus
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Russell Nelson
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Fred Lindberg
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Balazs Nagy
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Balazs Nagy
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficient? Balazs Nagy
- Re: Is qmail's log method inefficien... Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Magnus Bodin
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Vince Vielhaber
- Re: Is qmail's log method ineffi... Balazs Nagy
