RE: qmail 2.0 exploit
You know you guys are all assuming a lot. Who even says there will be a new version of qmail. qmail 1.03 is a very stable product... and stable is good in the linux world... just wish other venders would be willing to produce a product that was stable and then not muck with it until something truly useful is added. I'm sick and tired up updating software because one user needs that "neat new toe clipping option". David -Original Message- From: Brett Randall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 3:15 AM To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Jason Brooke; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail 2.0 exploit On 02 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan could fix this by releasing qmail-1.03.1 with different installation instructions. Of course, if he did, some people would take that to be an admission that there actually is a security hole in qmail-1.03. Who cares what other people think? If he (Dan) is giving out a product which is even better and easier to set up than his last version, then who cares about the reasons? What are we doing? Making software design a sentimental practice? I say just stick LWQ into qmail-1.whatever-is-next, and then all alleged bug reports, whether true or not (which can be debated until the end of time - ask yourself if it possible for both sides to agree. It is human nature that they won't) will be old news. -- "People say Microsoft payed $14M for using the Rolling Stones song 'Start me up' in their commercials. This is wrong. Microsoft payed $14M only for a part of the song. For instance, they didn't use the line 'You'll make a grown man cry'."
relaying
Hello all Gurus I wish to relay to all hosts... i am already authenticating users from tcpserverbut is there any way that i dont have to specify hosts , for which i can act as a relay , in the RCPTHOSTS file but simpy relay for ALL
qmail Digest 4 Mar 2001 11:00:01 -0000 Issue 1293
qmail Digest 4 Mar 2001 11:00:01 - Issue 1293 Topics (messages 58309 through 58365): Return-Path 58309 by: Jon 58313 by: Wolfgang Zeikat Re: Scalable Mail Solution 58310 by: Tim Hassan Re: Problem receiving email. 58311 by: Grant Re: trigger with wrong permission. 58312 by: skyper 58316 by: Charles Cazabon Re: Qmail Licensing Terms 58314 by: Alex Kramarov 58315 by: Charles Cazabon uucp server and qmail 58317 by: Yee Siew Chin 58318 by: Yee Siew Chin 58320 by: Frank Tegtmeyer Re: New qmail version request 58319 by: Mark Delany 58327 by: Balazs Nagy compiling ezmlm-idx with mysql-3.23.32 58321 by: dan sms-gateway 58322 by: Martin Kos 58323 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 58324 by: Martin Kos 58325 by: Frank Tegtmeyer 58326 by: Martin Kos Qmail-Fetchmail: delivered-to 58328 by: Martin Schüler 58329 by: Alexander Jernejcic 58333 by: Martin Schüler 58334 by: Alexander Jernejcic 58336 by: Martin Schüler 58346 by: Charles Cazabon HELP!! it is not going anywhere!! :( 58330 by: Hatem 58331 by: Alexander Jernejcic 58332 by: Martin Schüler 58335 by: Chris Johnson Re: Problem with rss? 58337 by: Todd A. Jacobs 58338 by: Chris Johnson 58340 by: Todd A. Jacobs 58357 by: Russell Nelson 58359 by: Todd A. Jacobs 58360 by: Russell Nelson rblsmtpd not recognizing -R flag 58339 by: Todd A. Jacobs 58341 by: Chris Johnson 58342 by: Chris Johnson 58343 by: Todd A. Jacobs I couldn't find a mail exchanger or IP address 58344 by: Steve Marks 58345 by: Martin Kos 58347 by: Martin Kos My mail is lost!! 58348 by: Hatem 58350 by: Chris Johnson 58351 by: Peter Cavender Spam from addresses harvested from message IDs 58349 by: Chris Johnson 58353 by: Wolfgang Zeikat Qmail and time zone 58352 by: Kari Suomela 58354 by: Mark Delany 58355 by: Chris Johnson 58358 by: Peter Cavender Re: Benchmarking qmail -- opinions, please 58356 by: Russell Nelson Peculiar results with multilog 58361 by: John R Levine 58362 by: Dan Peterson Re: qmail 2.0 exploit 58363 by: Brett Randall 58364 by: David Coley relaying 58365 by: Rohit Gupta 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, I have been running qmail for about 2 months now and everything has been great :-) I have a very simple setup. I host web sites on the server using Apache, and when someone uses a perl script though there web site, email sent by perl script has a return-path of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought qmail might use the username of the Apache web server as the return-path but it doesn't. Anyway to control what the return-path is? I have qmail setup to use the "alias" username to store mail and the Maildir format. So my /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains file looks like - websiteurl.com:alias-websiteurl Any ideas? All the best, Jon In the previous episode (03.03.2001), Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Anyway to control what the return-path is? with qmail you can also use the command sendmail -f sender adress recipient to send mails. if your script uses that, you could thus define the "return-path", the smtp envelope sender, to be precise. qmail-inject -f would do the same. man qmail-inject should give you more info. wolfgang What type of bandwidth connection would probably be best for a 5 million user mail cluster? I am thinking maybe T3 (definitely cannot afford OC)? The network is starting small and to later expand, what would be good for 1/2 million maybe for a start? T1? links to articles/documentation relating to bandwidth would be nice Any ideas/opinions are greatly appreciated Thanks Tim What is in ~hob/.qmail? [hob@hob hob]$ cat ~/.qmail ./Maildir/ [hob@hob hob]$ Don't run qmail-smtpd as root. This problem is completely separate from the issue that prompted your query. It's not being run as root. qmaill1922 0.0 1.0 1100 320 ?S18:36 0:00 /usr/local/bin/multilog t /var/log/qmail/smtpd Thanks. hi I started debugging and found that /var/qmail/queue/lock/trigger was: prw---1 qmails qmail 0 Mar 2 15:36 trigger [...] I set ownership and permissioins to: prw-r-1 qmailq qmail 0 Mar 2 15:51 trigger is this a known bug ? Any security problems with my modifications ? (i dont see any) Leave the ownership of
Re: relaying
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:03:21PM -0800, Rohit Gupta wrote: Hello all Gurus I wish to relay to all hosts... i am already authenticating users from tcpserver but is there any way that i dont have to specify hosts , for which i can act as a relay , in the RCPTHOSTS file but simpy relay for ALL Remove the rcpthosts file. Are you sure this is what you want? Greetz, Peter.
RE: relaying
Hi, Rohit Gupta wrote: ...snip... I wish to relay to all hosts... ...snip... if this is not an internal only mailserver you are likely to run into big troubles :) alexander
Re: qmail 2.0 exploit
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 07:14:59PM +1100, Brett Randall wrote: On 02 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan could fix this by releasing qmail-1.03.1 with different installation instructions. Of course, if he did, some people would take that to be an admission that there actually is a security hole in qmail-1.03. Who cares what other people think? If he (Dan) is giving out a product which is even better and easier to set up than his last version, then who cares about the reasons? What are we doing? Making software design a sentimental practice? hi. im new to the list...just read the topic. someone gimme infos about this exploit. which part of the source is vulnerable ? which file ? line ? any fix ? who is working on an exploit ? skyper -- PGP: dig @segfault.net skyper axfr|grep TX|cut -f2 -d\"|sort|cut -f2 -d\;
Qmail and time zone
Sunday March 04 2001 05:36, Mark Delany wrote to Kari Suomela: MD As others have said, qmail only puts a Date: header in if one MD isn't MD already present, That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. KS KARICO Business Services Toronto, ON Canada http://www.ksbase.com ... Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
Re: Qmail and time zone
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Kari Suomela wrote: MD As others have said, qmail only puts a Date: header in if one MD isn't MD already present, That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. Why do you keep saying this? Where does it say that the Date header should be in your local time zone? Why would it be better if it were? Chris PGP signature
Re: Qmail-Fetchmail: delivered-to
[...] new msg 232614 [...] info msg 232614: bytes 956 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 1873 uid 0 [...] end msg 232614 Postmaster gets no mail first time. Well, no one gets them. This is new. qmail-inject now eats them. Yes, fetchmail can lose your mail if everything is not configured perfectly. Might I suggest my own "getmail", which will not? See my .sig for a link. It doesn't do delivery by SMTP injection, which is a broken design. I already had checked getmail. But it was not suitable, since I need QMail's mail delivery. In the meantime I know why the mails were "eaten". I forgot about using mails having only "From:" and "Date:" fields, to avoid broken "To:" behaviour. qmail-inject does not know to whom to send the mail if it can not extract the recipient from the header. Martin
Re: Qmail and time zone
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Kari Suomela wrote: Sunday March 04 2001 05:36, Mark Delany wrote to Kari Suomela: MD As others have said, qmail only puts a Date: header in if one MD isn't MD already present, That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. According to which particular standard? The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. According to which particular standard? Btw. Personal preference does not count as a standard. Regards.
Re: Benchmarking qmail -- opinions, please
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been trying to prove this -- I'm in the early stages of benchmarking this, but queue injection at least seems to agree with this; I see either no performance change or a small performance drop as conf-split increases from 1 to various values during queue injection. Try it again with a queue of 10,000 messages. I will. I plan on running through a large queue with various values of conf-split, plus with and without large-todo (and perhaps large-concurrency when measuring delivery speed instead of injection speed). But it'll take a little while. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---
Re: qmail 2.0 exploit
skyper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: im new to the list...just read the topic. Not well enough, evidently. someone gimme infos about this exploit. There isn't one. It was a hypothetical argument. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---
Re: Qmail-Fetchmail: delivered-to
Martin Schler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: qmail-inject does not know to whom to send the mail if it can not extract the recipient from the header. Read the manual page for qmail-inject. The -a option will let you specify exactly which recipients to send the message to, regardless of the headers. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. ---
Re: trigger with wrong permission.
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: skyper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hu ? You mean allowing any local user to cat /dev/zero trigger is the better idea ? Giving non-trusted processes write access to a pipe of a daemon (running with root-privilieges) is never a good idea tought. That's the way it's designed. The author put a lot of thought into this, and there has never been a security hole in qmail. Look at the code yourself; it's safe. Not to mention that the permissions on the directory /var/qmail/queue/lock (and /var/qmail/queue) prevent anyone not in the qmail group from accessing it anyway. (Students of Unix variations will also know that Solaris and some other OSs don't correctly enforce permissions on the named pipe itself anyway.) James.
Re: mbox POP3 Server w/Virtual Domain Support
Ben Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mbox server and virtual domains. Basically I need to be able to allow my users to have both shell and POP3 access to their mail, and since they will be using clients such as Pine, elm and others, I'm going to need to support the mbox format. You could just make all clients talk through POP3 or IMAP. (That might discount Elm, but I wouldn't consider that a great loss) James.
Re: My mail is lost!!
Peter Cavender [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, After I had all the problems resovled ... from installation to the configuration!! I am now able to do the following: 1) login and use qmail as my SMTP / POP server: that is , when I use outlook or pine for example, to check for e-mails on qmail server, I got no errors reported at all. but when I use it to send e-mails, they do not arrive. when I send e-mails to it i.e. to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] no problems reported and the message does not seem to be there!! Can someone help me in this matter!! I think I am pretty close to this.. Thanks. qmail by default does not relay any mail. What's "default"? control/rcpthosts present but empty? If it's absent, then qmail does relay. Not, I think, a good choice, but so it goes. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Re: relaying
"Rohit Gupta" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wish to relay to all hosts... Soon, you will feel differently. Either you'll think better of this before you implementit, or else you will go ahead and implement it, be found by spammers, get 10 million bounce messages, and get added to ORBS, the RSS, and maybe the RBL. I suggest the first course -- pay attention to the other messages already posted in this thread, and don't do it. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED] SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
RE: Qmail and time zone
From Kari's header: Received: (qmail 1259 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Received: from kb2.ksbase.com (HELO k4.ksbase.com) (216.126.66.211) by kb3.ksbase.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:28:30 -0500 I am not talking about clients! Mail generated on a qmail server doesn't have proper date headers, whereas mail coming from a sendmail server does. and That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. Meseems you've got a perfectly reasonable Date: line... As a matter of fact, all your messages have a -0500 offset in the Date: line. What are you blathering about? Stefaan -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
RE: Qmail and time zone
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:44:45 +0100 (MET), Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: From Kari's header: Received: (qmail 1259 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Received: from kb2.ksbase.com (HELO k4.ksbase.com) (216.126.66.211) by kb3.ksbase.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2001 05:15:11 - Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:28:30 -0500 I am not talking about clients! Mail generated on a qmail server doesn't have proper date headers, whereas mail coming from a sendmail server does. and That's probably what it should be doing, except it's not doing it right. The Date header should include the TZ, i.e. GMT offset. Meseems you've got a perfectly reasonable Date: line... As a matter of fact, all your messages have a -0500 offset in the Date: line. What are you blathering about? Stefaan, the line that worries me in that snip you quoted was the one containing -. A negative GMT or UTC or whatever you call it means that there is a difficulty with the timezone on the local machine (IIRC RFC822) and due to an error in RFC822 definition of Military TZ codes (reversed offset from UTC) RFC1123 suggests the use of - should be substituted for all Mil TZs. Does this have any bearing on his problem? I don't know as I have not been following it in detail. The - just hit my eye. FWIW In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain The Word of Rod.
Extracting attachments from emails.
I am planning on sending backups of databases via automatic emails. Is it possible to automatically extract attachments from all emails to a certain address using some script and then unzipping the attachments or something along those lines? I know it's possible, I guess I'm asking for a solution to the problem :) Thanks.
Re: Extracting attachments from emails.
Grant wrote: Is it possible to automatically extract attachments from all emails to a certain address using some script and then unzipping the attachments or something along those lines? Yep. I do something slong those lines in my autoresponder package. See URL:http://MeepZor.Com/packages/autoresponder/. Perl, of course. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coarhttp://Golux.Com/coar/ Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/ "Apache Server for Dummies" http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Apache Server Unleashed" http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/ ApacheCon 2001! Four tracks with over 70+ sessions. Free admission to exhibits and special events - keynote presentations by John 'maddog' Hall and David Brin. Special thanks to our Platinum Sponsors IBM and Covalent, Gold Sponsor Thawte, and Silver Sponsor Compaq. Attend only Apache event designed and fully supported by the members of the ASF. See more information and register at http://ApacheCon.Com/!
Re: New qmail version request
Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above, at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct", and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit. I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his standards. As you said, the existing LDAP libraries are probably crap. But why does qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script which extracts user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd format, and feeds it to qmail-pw2u? Then cron it every hour or something. Voila, instant qmail+LDAP with no patches. If you want to set it up with virtualdomains-type use, have the script output qmail-users style output directly. In many environments (including ours), it's not acceptable to wait an hour or more (it takes our LDAP server about 2.5 hours to dump our 3 million user accounts into a text file, so significantly more) for a password change or a change to mail aliases to go through. Especially if you have users changing their own forwarding, who need to be able to test the changes. If they're waiting 2 hours for updates to take effect and are typo-prone, playing it by ear, or making changes for the first time, it could easily take an entire work day to get a mail forward or vacation right. This approach is also pretty hard on an LDAP server. Just to make a rough estimate, in an average hour, about 10% of our users check their mail, and about 10% receive messages, so you need to look at 20% of the entries in LDAP. If you dump it out, you need to look at 100% of the entries, so it's requires 5 times more power. While building a passwd-like file might work in some environments, it certainly doesn't work for everybody. That's why qmail-ldap exists, and is gaining popularity. --ScottG.
Re: New qmail version request
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LDAP is not part of an MTA. It's an extension. LDAP may not be part of an MTA (although it certainly can be, if it contains aliases), but it's a quite reasonable part of an MDA, which qmail also includes in qmail-local. It's certainly as reasonable a place to store account information as /etc/passwd, which qmail supports without an extension. While LDAP support may or may not be appropriate for the primary qmail distribution, it's not so wildly inappropriate as to warrant a two-sentence dismissal. :-) --ScottG.
Re: uucp server and qmail
Yee Siew Chin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: how can i configure a qmail to act as a uucp server? http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/outgoing.html#uucp Ian
Re: Return-Path
call qmail-inject with the -f option or specify the return path in the headers: Return-Path: user@host -K From: "Jon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:57:50 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Return-Path Hi, I have been running qmail for about 2 months now and everything has been great :-) I have a very simple setup. I host web sites on the server using Apache, and when someone uses a perl script though there web site, email sent by perl script has a return-path of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought qmail might use the username of the Apache web server as the return-path but it doesn't. Anyway to control what the return-path is? I have qmail setup to use the "alias" username to store mail and the Maildir format. So my /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains file looks like - websiteurl.com:alias-websiteurl Any ideas? All the best, Jon
QMTP/mail distribution
hi all- i currently have a setup where one central mail server receives all mail for a primary domain, then redistributes it to subdomains (eg satellite offices) as necessary. this is currently done with fastforward and SMTP. i'd like to try out QMTP, and use this to forward mail from the central server out to the satellites. is there an easy way to cofigure the cenral server to know who it can/should speak QMTP with? it seems very straightforward to receive QMTP messages, but i'm not sure if there's a great way to decide when to send QMTP mail. thanks- dan
Re: QMTP/mail distribution
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:17:09PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote: i currently have a setup where one central mail server receives all mail for a primary domain, then redistributes it to subdomains (eg satellite offices) as necessary. this is currently done with fastforward and SMTP. i'd like to try out QMTP, and use this to forward mail from the central server out to the satellites. is there an easy way to cofigure the cenral server to know who it can/should speak QMTP with? it seems very straightforward to receive QMTP messages, but i'm not sure if there's a great way to decide when to send QMTP mail. Try this patch to qmail: http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/qmail-qmtpc.html Or this one: http://www.qmail.org/qmail-1.03-qmtpc.patch in conjunction with: http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt Chris PGP signature
Re: QMTP/mail distribution
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 09:17:09PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote: hi all- i currently have a setup where one central mail server receives all mail for a primary domain, then redistributes it to subdomains (eg satellite offices) as necessary. this is currently done with fastforward and SMTP. i'd like to try out QMTP, and use this to forward mail from the central server out to the satellites. is there an easy way to cofigure the cenral server to know who it can/should speak QMTP with? it seems very straightforward to receive QMTP messages, but i'm not sure if there's a great way to decide when to send QMTP mail. Go to http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/qmail-qmtpc.html, download the patch and read man qmail-remote on mailroutes. Greetz, Peter.
cant recive mails
if i send from my host to my self it works, but if i try to send from another domain to my virtual domains i recive follow message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Action: Failed; Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address) Remote MTA clean-dress.ch: SMTP diagnostic: 550 Unable to relay for [EMAIL PROTECTED] my control files: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root4 Feb 26 02:24 concurrencyincoming -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11 Feb 26 02:24 defaultdelivery -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 102 Mar 5 04:03 locals -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 20 Mar 5 04:04 me -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 193 Feb 26 02:24 sqlserver in locals: mail.mynewdomain.ch mynewdomain.ch mail.virtualdomain.ch virtualdomain.ch in me: mail.mynewdomain.ch rcpt host i limit with tcpserver - has any one some idea? - could it be, because i use sql support ? thanks, for all solutions.. mike
Re: cant recive mails
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 04:53:56AM +0100, Mike A. Sauvain wrote: if i send from my host to my self it works, but if i try to send from another domain to my virtual domains i recive follow message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Action: Failed; Status: 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address) Remote MTA clean-dress.ch: SMTP diagnostic: 550 Unable to relay for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fix your DNS -- you cannot deliver mail until DNS knows who you are: gregw@frodo:~$ dig mail.mynewdomain.ch ; DiG 8.3 mail.mynewdomain.ch ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; mail.mynewdomain.ch, type = A, class = IN SNIP gregw@frodo:~$ dig mx mynewdomain.ch ; DiG 8.3 mx mynewdomain.ch ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 4 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; mynewdomain.ch, type = MX, class = IN SNIP I even went so far as to query an authoritative NS for .ch -- NXDOMAIN all the way. -- Greg White Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy
Re: New qmail version request
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:00:19PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: | On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 12:20:37PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: | "Edward J. Allen III" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the | distribution. This is how open source development works. | | qmail is not open source. It does not obey condition 3 of the Open | Source Definition: | http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html | | Open Source is something else than open source. | | qmail is open source. | | qmail is not Open Source. | | Please do not respond, this subject has been discussed over and over. | | Greetz, Peter. | Peter this is your second mail in this thread telling other to "Please stop this thread".. If something has been discussed before on the list why can't we discuss it again? -- .Fredrik Steen - http://www.stone.nu - PGP signature
