qmail Digest 6 Feb 2000 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 903

Topics (messages 36814 through 36838):

complex user routing
        36814 by: sachin

>From pop3 > bounce > mailque
        36815 by: Magnus �stergaard

Re: Hanging of qmail SMTP
        36816 by: Faried Nawaz

Re: Queue and remote
        36817 by: Faried Nawaz
        36818 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary

Changing Password
        36819 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary
        36823 by: Sam
        36832 by: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary
        36833 by: Julian L.B. Cardarelli

Re: workaround for port 25 block? (fwd)
        36820 by: Martin Randall
        36821 by: Brian R
        36822 by: Martin Randall
        36824 by: Sam

"qq write error or disk full (#4.3.0)"
        36825 by: courtney.whtz.com
        36826 by: Mikko H�nninen
        36827 by: Ronny Haryanto

re-mapping incoming email
        36828 by: Manfred Bartz
        36837 by: Faried Nawaz

Relay Problem
        36829 by: Roberto Samarone Araujo
        36830 by: John Conover
        36835 by: David Dyer-Bennet
        36838 by: Jacob Joseph

[Announce] oMail 0.3 - Now with Autoresponder support
        36831 by: Olivier M.

Re: How would one do this? (qmail + exchange servers)
        36834 by: Greg Owen

Re: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....)
        36836 by: David Dyer-Bennet

Administrivia:

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To bug my human owner, e-mail:
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To post to the list, e-mail:
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]


----------------------------------------------------------------------


hi all ,

sachin here ,

what i want is i am useing aceindia.com as local mail server. some user are located at diffrent location . there is also qmail mail server with aceindia.com as local mail server. what i want for that location user mail should send to my isp smtp server without changing the rcpt & from header.

ex local user [EMAIL PROTECTED] other location user is [EMAIL PROTECTED]

when i compose message for [EMAIL PROTECTED] it should user my isp smtp server fro sending mail .

further help is required

[EMAIL PROTECTED]





Hi There,

I recive all mail sent to my domain from a single pop3 account via
dialup.

If I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] via a local account I get a bounce
as I would like.
The problem is mails recived via my pop3 account when bouncing thay go
to postmaster.
Now I would like the bouncing mail to go the the outgoing mailque
(pppdir) so that the person sending the mail sees it's a bad address.

How can I fix this so bouncing mail goes back to Return-Path and not my
postmaster?

// Magnus






"Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Hi all!

Hi dude!

  
  I found my qmail server has been hanging time to time. At hang situatin, it
  receives mail from any smtp client but does not delever it to destination.
  All mails are queued. I have to restart the machine to get life working.
  qmail works nice for 2/3 days and suddenly hangs again. Even if I kill
  qmail-send and restart it again (of give kill -ALRM `pidof qmail-send`), it
  doesnt work properly.
  
  Any help please?

What do the logs show after you do kill -ALRM?  What kind of system is this?
If it's Linux, what version of the kernel and glibc are you running?




 Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I was checking my qmail queue (with ./qmail-qread) and I found a lot of :
  
  .
  .
  done  remote  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  doen  remote          "
  done  remote          "
  done  remote          "
  done  remote          "
  done  remote          "
  .
  Can you tell me what documentation should I read in order to clean all
  these "done remote"?

Don't worry about it.  All qmail-qread is telling you is that there is a
message in the mail queue which was sent to many addresses and not all of
them have been delivered to yet.  When all have been delivered to, the
message will disappear from the mail queue (and hence, from qmail-qread's
output).




Probably you have listed from .qmail-qread and the status is one of the
sender who provided a cc to many ppl. Anyway I can manually clean it. done
means it has already been sent, you know. But at least there is a one
address under same mail which is still to delevery.

If you wan to clean it you can go to /var/qmail/queue/ and find out the
file name from ./info/ , ./mess and ./remote directry which is the same as
message ID. Now just delete the file.

Sifat.

At 06:26 PM 2/5/00 +0500, you wrote:
> Director tecnico del Nodo Nicarao -- Juan Navas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
>  I was checking my qmail queue (with ./qmail-qread) and I found a lot of :
>  
>  .
>  .
>  done  remote  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  doen  remote          "
>  done  remote          "
>  done  remote          "
>  done  remote          "
>  done  remote          "
>  .
>  Can you tell me what documentation should I read in order to clean all
>  these "done remote"?
>
>Don't worry about it.  All qmail-qread is telling you is that there is a
>message in the mail queue which was sent to many addresses and not all of
>them have been delivered to yet.  When all have been delivered to, the
>message will disappear from the mail queue (and hence, from qmail-qread's
>output).
>
>





Hi all!

I use qmail-pop3 for my pop users. They can check their mail, but they
cannot change their password from pop clients (sya from eudora). What can I
do? Please help..

Sifat.





On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary wrote:

> Hi all!
> 
> I use qmail-pop3 for my pop users. They can check their mail, but they
> cannot change their password from pop clients (sya from eudora). What can I
> do? Please help..

Nothing.

The POP3 protocol does not specify any way for anyone to change any
password.







Hi all!

I use qmail-pop3 for my pop users. They can check their mail, but they
cannot change their password from pop clients (sya from eudora). What can I
do? Please help..

Sifat.






Sifat,

Your question was already answered today at 2:30pm.  Please do not pollute
the list.

.:J

------------------

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I use qmail-pop3 for my pop users. They can check their mail, but they
> cannot change their password from pop clients (sya from eudora). What can
I
> do? Please help..

Nothing.

The POP3 protocol does not specify any way for anyone to change any
password.



-----Original Message-----
From: Md. Sifat Ullah Patwary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 10:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Changing Password


Hi all!

I use qmail-pop3 for my pop users. They can check their mail, but they
cannot change their password from pop clients (sya from eudora). What can I
do? Please help..

Sifat.





Aack...went to Aaron and not the list.



*** Begin of forwarded message ***

Date: 05-Feb-00 00:09:32
From: Martin Randall
Hello Aaron

On 04-Feb-00, you wrote: 

> Quoting Racer X ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> if you mean the ISP blocks inbound port 25 connections to your machine: yell
>> at your ISP.  they're being too nazi with their firewall rules.  if they
>> don't open the port find a new ISP.  this is assuming, btw, that you have a
> 
> The reason they took this draconian measure was to protect the rest of
> us from their customers.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of their
> customers are running proxies and mail servers with little or no
> security.  The vast majority of these proxies and relays were allowing
> mail relaying and proxied usenet posting (proxy everything, for that
> matter).  Very nasty.  They were facing UDP and probably other
> sanctions.  @home: scourge of the internet.
> 
> Aaron
> 

That was one of the reasons given, which I and many other RR people think is bogus. 

It is illegal for non-business account users to use servers of any kind and if they 
find out you are (hardly a difficult task), they will terminate your service. It's in 
the terms and conditions.

The real reason...It's down to money folks.

Basic service is $49.95p/m, $39.95p/m if you have their cable service.

To open up the mail server port 25, they will charge you an extra $79.95p/m.
Want to run a mail, web & ftp server, it's an extra $249.95p/m.

In fact, I'm looking into DSL to run some stuff, which I'll mention on some of Dan's 
lists, once I put on my firesuit and anchor the chains down  :-)

Regards...Martin
-- 
---------------

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
 -- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims" 1804-1815

*** End of forwarded message ***



Regards...Martin
-- 
---------------

After I run your program, let's make love like crazed weasels, OK?






hi,

actually those rules are very regional. In Rochester it is not against the
AUP to run web servers, ftp, game servers ... etc. That is of course,
assuming you are not doing anything illegal. If you are taking up to much
bandwidth, they will throttle your modem. Period. (having worked there, i
know how they operate)

but i did look up the business rates (when i worked there they hadnt started
offering business service yet) and they wanted roughly $700 a month for the
same service i get now. sorry, that i will not do.


brian


************************************************************

That was one of the reasons given, which I and many other RR people think is
bogus.

It is illegal for non-business account users to use servers of any kind and
if they find out you are (hardly a difficult task), they will terminate your
service. It's in the terms and conditions.

The real reason...It's down to money folks.

Basic service is $49.95p/m, $39.95p/m if you have their cable service.

To open up the mail server port 25, they will charge you an extra $79.95p/m.
Want to run a mail, web & ftp server, it's an extra $249.95p/m.

In fact, I'm looking into DSL to run some stuff, which I'll mention on some
of Dan's lists, once I put on my firesuit and anchor the chains down  :-)

Regards...Martin
--
---------------

A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
 -- Napoleon Bonaparte, "Maxims" 1804-1815

*** End of forwarded message ***



Regards...Martin
--
---------------

After I run your program, let's make love like crazed weasels, OK?








Hello Brian


No need to send to me as well. I'm on the list.

On 05-Feb-00, you wrote: 

> hi,
> 
> actually those rules are very regional. 


Damn (excuse my French), I'm in the wrong region then. Tampabay is a pain.


> In Rochester it is not against the
> AUP to run web servers, ftp, game servers ... etc. That is of course,
> assuming you are not doing anything illegal. If you are taking up to much
> bandwidth, they will throttle your modem. Period. (having worked there, i
> know how they operate)


You lucky, lucky. (you know what). I'm jealous.


0> 
> but i did look up the business rates (when i worked there they hadnt started
> offering business service yet) and they wanted roughly $700 a month for the
> same service i get now. sorry, that i will not do.
> 


Yes, Tell me about it.

I even tried to appeal to their kind nature saying that I just wanted to do some free 
mailing lists and web pages supporting those lists, i.e. giving back to the internet 
community. - No joy.


> 
> brian

Regards...Martin
-- 
---------------

 Friends don't let friends use MS-DOS.






On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Brian R wrote:

> In fact, I'm looking into DSL to run some stuff, which I'll mention on some
> of Dan's lists, once I put on my firesuit and anchor the chains down  :-)

Last time I checked, DSL provider speakeasy.net's TOS/AUP explicitly
allows their customers to run any server their heart desires, as long as
it doesn't suck up gobs of bandwidth.

I think that this is a very reasonable policy.

Time Warner cable in Manhattan is about to start a huge marketing campaign
to push their cable modem service[1], which looks like to be RoadRunner.

Screw them.

[1] Yes, folks, until just a few short weeks ago, cable modem service has
not been available in Manhattan.








Hey everyone, I am getting a message that is telling my "qq write error or
disk full (#4.3.0)"

This is what the output of my 'df' command shows, so I don't think that
it's a disk full issue...

Filesystem  1K-blocks     Used    Avail Capacity  Mounted on
/dev/wd0s1a     39647    19032    17444    52%    /
/dev/wd0s1f   2230950   378472  1674002    18%    /usr
/dev/wd0s1e     19815    11179     7051    61%    /var
procfs              4        4        0   100%    /proc

Can anyone tell me how to make this work?  The e-mail I am sending is
21MB...

thanks,
Bernie






[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sat, 05 Feb 2000:
> This is what the output of my 'df' command shows, so I don't think that
> it's a disk full issue...

Actually, it probably is.

> Filesystem  1K-blocks     Used    Avail Capacity  Mounted on
> /dev/wd0s1e     19815    11179     7051    61%    /var

qmail is (usually) installed under /var, and this is where the queue is
too.  This line above shows that you have approximately 7MB of free disk
space on /var, so a 21MB email couldn't possibly fit there.  Also keep
in mind that file attachements grow in size when sent with emails, a
21MB file as an attachment is more like 30MB in the email.

Actually, your /var is in its entirety is less than 20MB...  Very tiny,
for a mail spool partition.


Hope this helps,
Mikko
-- 
// Mikko H�nninen, aka. Wizzu  //  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  //  http://www.iki.fi/wiz/
// The Corrs list maintainer  //   net.freak  //   DALnet IRC operator /
// Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy & scifi, the Corrs /
I wish life had a scroll-back buffer.




On 05-Feb-2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey everyone, I am getting a message that is telling my "qq write error or
> disk full (#4.3.0)"
> 
> This is what the output of my 'df' command shows, so I don't think that
> it's a disk full issue...
> 
> Filesystem  1K-blocks     Used    Avail Capacity  Mounted on
> /dev/wd0s1a     39647    19032    17444    52%    /
> /dev/wd0s1f   2230950   378472  1674002    18%    /usr
> /dev/wd0s1e     19815    11179     7051    61%    /var
                                     ^^^^
                                     This is 7MB.

> Can anyone tell me how to make this work?  The e-mail I am sending is
> 21MB...

Unless you put the qmail queue in the /usr partition, then you _do_
have a disk full issue.

        Ronny




I retrieve email for a virtual domain hosted elsewhere with fetchmail
which then connects to my local qmail via SMTP.  All email from that
source then goes to one local account.

I would like to have the system look at the ``X-Envelope-To:'' header
(which is kindly provided by the hosting company) and redirect email
accordingly to various different local accounts.

What would be the best way of doing this?

-- 
Manfred Bartz




Manfred Bartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I would like to have the system look at the ``X-Envelope-To:'' header
  (which is kindly provided by the hosting company) and redirect email
  accordingly to various different local accounts.
  
  What would be the best way of doing this?

Run it through procmail.




     Hi ,

 I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays.  I'm using tcpserver
 with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp

 200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
 :allow

 According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
200.242.253.*
 to use my server as a relay.  But when I test remotely using
mail-abuse.org , the test messages
 are allowed through.
 
  What do I need to do to solve this problem ?


            Roberto Samarone Araujo




Roberto Samarone Araujo writes:
>      Hi ,
> 
>  I'm a new qmail user having a problem with relays.  I'm using tcpserver
>  with 1 domain in rcpthosts and the following in etc/tcp.smtp
> 
>  200.242.253.0:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>  :allow
> 
>  According to what I've read, this should allow only users with
> 200.242.253.*
>  to use my server as a relay.  But when I test remotely using
> mail-abuse.org , the test messages
>  are allowed through.
>  
>   What do I need to do to solve this problem ?
>

I haven't tried it against orbs, but, for the mail server's IP being
123.321.123.321 and a client's 123.321.123.322:

    :deny
    127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
    123.321.123.321:allow
    123.321.123.322:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""

which came from someone on this list. Could this be verified as
correct?

        Thanks,

        John


-- 

John Conover        [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.inow.com/
631 Lamont Ct.      Tel. 408.370.2688  http://www.inow.com/ntropix/
Campbell, CA 95008  Fax. 408.379.9602  http://www.inow.com/nformatix/





John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 February 2000 at 01:21:38 -0000

 > I haven't tried it against orbs, but, for the mail server's IP being
 > 123.321.123.321 and a client's 123.321.123.322:
 > 
 >     :deny
 >     127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
 >     123.321.123.321:allow
 >     123.321.123.322:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
 > 
 > which came from someone on this list. Could this be verified as
 > correct?

You don't want the :deny; that will prevent anybody else from
connecting to deliver mail *at all*, even mail directed to your
users.  And you want to set relayclient for the server itself by IP,
as well as the server itself by localhost IP.

My tcp.smtp looks like this:

# tcpcontrol(8) rules for qmail smtp daemon
#
# In general, anywhere I want to allow relaying from, I probably want
# to ignore spamblocks too.

# Allow relaying from my own addresses -- at gofast (dead now)
# 206.147.220.161-165:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
#
# Blaisdell poly USWest static addresses
63.224.10.73-78:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
#
# Lydy at work (All of MultiLogic, really used just by Lydy)
206.144.140.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
#
# Blaisdell Poly internal private addresses
10.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
#
# Override ORBS/RBL for a few hosts, at least for now
# The hockey.net domain
209.98.94.1-8:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
# mail.gunnison.com, for Kara Dalkey
199.190.87.30:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
# icicle.winternet.com, for Geri 11/16/1999
198.174.169.13:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
#
# Finally, allow anything else, but without relaying
# (Domains to refuse entirely would go above this)
:allow

-- 
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b 
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]




You know what?  Does Roberto have an rcpthosts file?  If not, this behavior
would be expected.

Just a suggestion....
Jacob Joseph

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2000 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Relay Problem


> John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 6 February 2000 at
01:21:38 -0000
>
>  > I haven't tried it against orbs, but, for the mail server's IP being
>  > 123.321.123.321 and a client's 123.321.123.322:
>  >
>  >     :deny
>  >     127.:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>  >     123.321.123.321:allow
>  >     123.321.123.322:allow,RELAYCLIENT=""
>  >
>  > which came from someone on this list. Could this be verified as
>  > correct?
>
> You don't want the :deny; that will prevent anybody else from
> connecting to deliver mail *at all*, even mail directed to your
> users.  And you want to set relayclient for the server itself by IP,
> as well as the server itself by localhost IP.
>
> My tcp.smtp looks like this:
>
> # tcpcontrol(8) rules for qmail smtp daemon
> #
> # In general, anywhere I want to allow relaying from, I probably want
> # to ignore spamblocks too.
>
> # Allow relaying from my own addresses -- at gofast (dead now)
> # 206.147.220.161-165:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
> #
> # Blaisdell poly USWest static addresses
> 63.224.10.73-78:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
> #
> # Lydy at work (All of MultiLogic, really used just by Lydy)
> 206.144.140.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
> #
> # Blaisdell Poly internal private addresses
> 10.:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD=""
> #
> # Override ORBS/RBL for a few hosts, at least for now
> # The hockey.net domain
> 209.98.94.1-8:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
> # mail.gunnison.com, for Kara Dalkey
> 199.190.87.30:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
> # icicle.winternet.com, for Geri 11/16/1999
> 198.174.169.13:allow,RBLSMTPD=""
> #
> # Finally, allow anything else, but without relaying
> # (Domains to refuse entirely would go above this)
> :allow
>
> --
> Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon:
http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
> Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
> David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>





   oMail 0.3 - 06feb2k
   ---------

   A PHP/perl based qmail+vmailmgrd Maildomain Administration Web interface

   New in this version :  - autoresponder support
   ---------------------  - new homepage and screenshots

   oMail is a web front end to qmail/vmailmgrd. It can be used by domain
   owners to easily administer their mail accounts without bothering the
   sysadmin. Working features: manage mailboxes (pop3) and aliases,
   change passwords, support for french, englich and german. Planed
   features: autoresponder support, single user administration interface,
   webmail.

   URLs:
   -----
   Download: http://omail.omnis.ch/omail-0.3.tar.gz
   Homepage: http://omail.omnis.ch
   Changelog: http://omail.omnis.ch/ChangeLog

   Please note that it is currently Alpha-state software. I know
   there are still bugs :)

   There are some new screenshots available under
         http://omail.omnis.ch/screenshots.html

   Working demo:  (domain = test.com / passwd = test)
         http://admin.omnis.ch/omail/


Enjoy! Comments are of course welcome!
Olivier






>I want to set up a high-uptime qmail server for all our inbound
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mail, and to send out machine generated email. Our
>employees, however, are going to be on an exchange server. I have no choice
>in that. And it's VERY desirable to keep user administration on exchange,
>which means I'd rather that qmail and exchange not have to trade directory
>information. If they did, it'd need to be very automatic.
>
>So I'm thinking, install qmail, and tell it "If you get inbound mail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], and it's not local, kick it to the exchange server."
>The exchange server then takes it and delivers to its local user.


    All easily enough done - the FAQ has an entry on this, as follows:

]How do I forward unrecognized usernames to another host? With sendmail
]I had a LUSER_RELAY pointing at bigbang.af.mil.
]
]Answer: Put
]     | forward "$[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
]into ~alias/.qmail-default.

>Okay, so what if an exchange user needs to send mail to a mailbox local to
>the qmail server? Well, I could tell exchange "If you don't know this
>address, kick it to the qmail box."


    Either that, or you could just add alias entries on Exchange saying that
mail for "autoprog" goes to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and that'll forward
it out to the relay machine.

>But then if exchange doesn't know it, and it's not local for qmail, qmail
>will want to send it back. And if I read the docs right, then postmaster is
>going to get it.

    That depends.

    If the recipient in question is local to your domain, then yes, qmail
will forward it back to Exchange, which will generate a bounce message -
which will be correct, because by definition both Exchange and Qmail don't
know who it is for.  Either the address is bad, or one of your servers needs
the appropriate user added.

    If the recipient in question is not local to your domain, then qmail
will attempt to deliver the message to its final recipient at (wherever).
Assuming your firewall does not block the qmail machine from doing so, it'll
succeed as well as it would directly from Exchange.

>Can anyone think of a way to work this? I imagine someone's already done
>something similar. Or *is* there a good way for exchange to trade directory
>info with qmail so qmail can route by address?


    I run a similar setup.  Our MX hosts are qmail machines, and they act as
relays for the Exchange server.  They relay in from the Internet, they relay
out from Exchange.

    I don't know of any way to trade directory info... but I don't think you
really need to do that.

    Hope this helps - if not, please clarify if I've misunderstood anything.

    Greg





Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 4 February 2000 at 20:27:41 +0100
 > Bruno Wolff III wrote:
 > > 
 > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:43:37AM -0600,
 > >   David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > > True; but if you're modifying existing files, the directory data to
 > > > locate it is already safely on disk; only the timestamp might be
 > > > wrong.  This isn't the qmail situation, but it's an important real
 > > > situation, and suggests a reason why it makes sense to to separate
 > > > file sync and directory sync.  Maybe.
 > > 
 > > Another situation is when dealing with several files in the same directory.
 > > You need to fsync each file, but you only need to fsync the directory once.
 > 
 > And how does this help you with qmail?

May not, much; but I was responding to a more general question about
how / whether there could be any benefit to separating file sync and
directory sync.
-- 
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b 
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to