"Frank Tegtmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's amazing how qmail haters (here in Germany) always reduced the >discussion about qmail to this special case - it may be bad discussion >style but I also think that there is more need to support this type of >setup than the "normal" qmail administrator may assume. The bottom line is that qmail was designed for well-connected hosts. It's just not possible for qmail to be optimal in all cases: engineering is the art of balancing trade-offs. -Dave
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Sam
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Sam
- Re: qmail remote delivery logi... Russell Nelson
- Big DNS-patch also for t-onlin... Frank Tegtmeyer
- Re: Big DNS-patch also for t-o... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Big DNS-patch also for t-o... Frank Tegtmeyer
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Jim B
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Dave Sill
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic James J. Lippard
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Andy Bradford
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Jason Haar
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Fred Lindberg
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Bruce Guenter
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Frederik Lindberg
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Bruce Guenter
- Re: qmail remote delivery logic Frederik Lindberg
