On 2021-02-22, Kevin Shell wrote:
>>
> But I see your posts are coming into
> the debian user list thru news.bofh.it / erode.bofh.it?
>
> Received: from erode.bofh.it (erode.bofh.it [85.94.204.147])
> by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D507E20160
> for ; Mon, 22 Feb
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 01:39:18PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-02-22, Kevin Shell wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe it's some problem specific to news.free.fr.
> >>
> >
> > How the two sites news.bofh.it/erode.bofh.it news.free.fr are connected?
> > Is news.bofh.it feeding articles to news.free.fr?
>
>
On 2021-02-22, Kevin Shell wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's some problem specific to news.free.fr.
>>
>
> How the two sites news.bofh.it/erode.bofh.it news.free.fr are connected?
> Is news.bofh.it feeding articles to news.free.fr?
They are not connected.
> By the way,
> the site
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:18:36AM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-02-22, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > I'm not aware of doing anything special, just reply-to-list (Cc'd you on=20
> > this message though).
> >
> > Is it only my messages you are missing?
> >
>
> You do appear here on the gmane
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Du, 21 feb 21, 16:23:31, Curt wrote:
On 2021-02-21, David Wright wrote:
The Mail Transport Agent Switcher. Almost sounds like a name invented by
the marketing department. Anyway, I guess the MTAS is irrelevant because
we're not concerned with
On 2021-02-22, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of doing anything special, just reply-to-list (Cc'd you on=20
> this message though).
>
> Is it only my messages you are missing?
>
You do appear here on the gmane server, but remain MIA on news.free.fr.
Maybe it's some problem specific to
On Du, 21 feb 21, 16:23:31, Curt wrote:
> On 2021-02-21, David Wright wrote:
> >>
> >> The Mail Transport Agent Switcher. Almost sounds like a name invented by
> >> the marketing department. Anyway, I guess the MTAS is irrelevant because
> >> we're not concerned with Fedora here. But I suppose
On 2021-02-21, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> The Mail Transport Agent Switcher. Almost sounds like a name invented by
>> the marketing department. Anyway, I guess the MTAS is irrelevant because
>> we're not concerned with Fedora here. But I suppose its existence proves
>> its usefulness---or maybe
On Sat 20 Feb 2021 at 13:12:39 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2021-02-20, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > For each MTA, you also have to ensure that their well-known recipes
> > for passing off work to other software (like MDAs) still work, else
> > Debian gets lumbered with supporting all the breakages
On 2021-02-20, David Wright wrote:
>
> For each MTA, you also have to ensure that their well-known recipes
> for passing off work to other software (like MDAs) still work, else
> Debian gets lumbered with supporting all the breakages that occur
> (or, worse, loses reputation).
>
Did someone
On Fri 19 Feb 2021 at 17:22:25 (+1300), Richard Hector wrote:
> On 19/02/21 2:34 am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Jo, 18 feb 21, 08:15:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > Richard Hector wrote:
> > > > On 18/02/21 5:22 am, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell
Richard Hector wrote:
> There are multiple standard ports, though. E.g. one could easily run one MTA
> on port 25 for incoming mail, and another on 587 for outgoing.
>
> My point, though, was that there's a precedent for daemons that default to
> listening on the same port, yet are
On 19/02/21 2:34 am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Jo, 18 feb 21, 08:15:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Hector wrote:
> On 18/02/21 5:22 am, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell wrote:
> > > You could stop one and start the other,
> > > there's no resources
On Jo, 18 feb 21, 08:15:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Richard Hector wrote:
> > On 18/02/21 5:22 am, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell wrote:
> > > > You could stop one and start the other,
> > > > there's no resources or port conflict.
> > > > I want to
Richard Hector wrote:
> On 18/02/21 5:22 am, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell wrote:
> > > You could stop one and start the other,
> > > there's no resources or port conflict.
> > > I want to just keep both, not run them at the same time.
> >
> >
On 18/02/21 5:22 am, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell wrote:
You could stop one and start the other,
there's no resources or port conflict.
I want to just keep both, not run them at the same time.
Again, as stated at the start of this fiasco of a
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 02:31:27PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> Yes, sorry; I was thinking about Stefan's comment about "running
> two different SMTP servers on two different interfaces", which seems
> to be +some+ sort of use case. Might they then be able to deliver
> to the a common MDA?
>
>
On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 11:33:11 (-0500), Dan Ritter wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> >
> > The only realistic suggestion I've read here is from tom??s,
> > who seems to be expressing some sort of shim dispatcher.
> > And I await a thought-out solution from the virtualisation crowd.
>
> I mean,
David Wright wrote:
>
> The only realistic suggestion I've read here is from tom??s,
> who seems to be expressing some sort of shim dispatcher.
> And I await a thought-out solution from the virtualisation crowd.
I mean, that's easy, but it doesn't solve the stated problem.
Each VM is a notional
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:06:37AM +0800, Kevin Shell wrote:
> You could stop one and start the other,
> there's no resources or port conflict.
> I want to just keep both, not run them at the same time.
Again, as stated at the start of this fiasco of a thread, Debian policy
says that all daemons
On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 10:49:35 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-02-17 at 10:25, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 20:45:02 (+0800), Kevin Shell wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:19:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >> > It'd be work in the DPKG/APT code,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:49:35AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-02-17 at 10:25, David Wright wrote:
>
[...]
> I think what he's wanting is a case which would allow installing
> busybox-static, but not insist on removing busybox. (Or the equivalent
> in his actual use-case, where the files
On 2021-02-17 at 10:25, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 20:45:02 (+0800), Kevin Shell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:19:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> >
>> [...]
>> > It'd be work in the DPKG/APT code, yes. But it would require no extra
>> > work from the people doing
On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 20:45:02 (+0800), Kevin Shell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:19:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > It'd be work in the DPKG/APT code, yes. But it would require no extra
> > work from the people doing the packaging.
>
> I know little technical details
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:19:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
[...]
> It'd be work in the DPKG/APT code, yes. But it would require no extra
> work from the people doing the packaging.
>
I know little technical details about the Debian package manager,
from an end user's perspective, the
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 05:52:21PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[...]
> > I have the hunch that just making the packages co-installable is
> > the more pleasant avenue...
>
> It's more pragmatic, but it won't solve the longer-term recurring issues.
I think I was too cryptic, sorry: I meant
> But if you're seriously figuring out how to have, say, coexisting MTAs,
> and fold that back into the Debian project, then I would have thought
> that tweaking the Control fields is part of the deliverable.
My use-case is when the users (e.g. yours truly) have no intention of
folding it back
On Tue 16 Feb 2021 at 19:19:52 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> I can't see any reason why it should be fundamentally hard to make
> >> dpkg/apt ignore some conflict/require statements. Maybe it would take
> >> a fair bit of changes to the existing code if we want to make it work
> >>
>> I can't see any reason why it should be fundamentally hard to make
>> dpkg/apt ignore some conflict/require statements. Maybe it would take
>> a fair bit of changes to the existing code if we want to make it work
>> seamlessly (or maybe not, I don't know), but if so, it's only because
>> the
> Of course not. But it'll be the only way to find out which stumbling
> blocks lie beyond the package-imposed "conflicts". And then, perhaps,
> convince the DDs That Be.
W.r.t multiple MTAs, I wouldn't bother to try and convince the DDs, at
least not without a solid use-case, which seems quite
On Tue 16 Feb 2021 at 14:40:33 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Dan Ritter [2021-02-16 11:03:14] wrote:
> > Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Still, there is to me no good reason not to allow installing both exim
> >> and postfix at the same time. I think it's just a tradeoff between how
> >> often
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 02:40:33PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Exactly. This is user-y stuff: imagine two X servers running on behalf
> > of two users [...]
> Not sure in which way this is different from running two different SMTP
> servers on two different interfaces.
Technically not
Dan Ritter [2021-02-16 11:03:14] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Still, there is to me no good reason not to allow installing both exim
>> and postfix at the same time. I think it's just a tradeoff between how
>> often this could be useful and how much work it takes to tweak the
>> packages.
>
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:22:21 +0100
wrote:
...
> Exactly. This is user-y stuff: imagine two X servers running on behalf
> of two users (some time ago, those were a separate hardware: remember
> those shiny HP thingies with a whopping 6 MB of RAM and a huge monitor?
>
> This was before HP
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:03:14AM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Still, there is to me no good reason not to allow installing both exim
> > and postfix at the same time. I think it's just a tradeoff between how
> > often this could be useful and how much work it takes to
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:17:13AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Therefore, you'll find apretty advanced alternatives system
> > for client-y stuff in Debian (editor, MUA, what not) but
> > not for server-y stuff.
>
> Hmm... so that's your take on it?
> Maybe you're right. I was thinking of
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Still, there is to me no good reason not to allow installing both exim
> and postfix at the same time. I think it's just a tradeoff between how
> often this could be useful and how much work it takes to tweak the
> packages.
An MTA has to provide certain things, or else
> Therefore, you'll find apretty advanced alternatives system
> for client-y stuff in Debian (editor, MUA, what not) but
> not for server-y stuff.
Hmm... so that's your take on it?
Maybe you're right. I was thinking of the display manager as
a counter-example (you can install lxdm, gdm, and
38 matches
Mail list logo
