i think the latter is correct. this is my fault; i'm responsible for
setting up our secondary, and the admin who set up our primary told me
that it was qmail-1.03. it's definitely qmail, but must be an older
version.
thanks-
dan
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:52:40AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 05:05:30PM -0500, dan kelley wrote:
> > > they're definitley qmail; both run qmail-1.03 unpatched under tcpserver.
> > >
> > > what do you mean by 'help for smtp' ?
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > lagrange(2:2697) $ telnet mailhost.otec.com smtp
> > Trying 209.3.117.5...
> > Connected to mx1.ny.otec.com.
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> > 220 *********************
> > help
> > 502 unimplemented (#5.5.1)
> > quit
> > 221 mx1.ny.otec.com
>
> It does give me the 'timestamp qp pid' thing when I send a message
> thru it... Looks like heavily patched, or maybe old qmail.
>
> Greetz, Peter.
>
