According to Brad Knowles:
> I've just downloaded the package and haven't yet had a chance to
> actually try it out, but it looks to me like it uses the standard
> sendmail & SMTP interfaces.
It does.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD kelti
At 7:30 PM +0200 1999/10/14, Anton Berezin wrote:
> Hmm, it sends mails itself. I doubt it can do this more effectively than
> postfix does. Am I wrong?
I quote from the README file:
>> You probably want to create a listar user/group so that the program
>> runs as an unpriveledged use
> finished, pending acquistion of a round tuit.
Olliver Robert should be able to get on in France and bring it
to the FreeBSDCon.
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
According to Anton Berezin:
> Hmm, it sends mails itself. I doubt it can do this more effectively than
> postfix does. Am I wrong?
Yes :-)
Postfix, as discussion with Wietse showed recently, is more optimized to mail
flowing through the SMTP port (like Listar does) than through the sendmail
fr
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Jonathan M. Bresler:
> > thanks for the note on bouncefilter.
> > i'll take a look at it.
>
> Someday, when you have 5 minutes free (aha!) have a look at Listar. It is a
> small, fast and feature-full list manager written in C with autom
listar.orgi'll take a look.
thanks for the pointer.
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 06:46:15PM +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> Someday, when you have 5 minutes free (aha!) have a look at Listar. It
> is a small, fast and feature-full list manager written in C with
> automatic bounce handling (among other things).
Hmm, it sends mails itself. I doubt it c
According to Jonathan M. Bresler:
> thanks for the note on bouncefilter.
> i'll take a look at it.
Someday, when you have 5 minutes free (aha!) have a look at Listar. It is a
small, fast and feature-full list manager written in C with automatic bounce
handling (among other things).
www.listar.or
According to Nate Williams:
> How do you cause 'vacation' to not send messages to the list? Doesn't
> the stock 'vacation' program as shipped in FreeBSD send them to the
> list?
It is supposed to notice that the mail has a Precedence: header and not send
any vacation notice to any mail with one.
At 4:19 PM +0200 1999/10/13, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> That is something qmail has done since the beginning.
With respect to qmail, I have no knowledge of that. I do know
that this feature was available in the first public beta of Postfix.
It was introduced early in the "alpha" stage o
Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 2:28 PM +0200 1999/10/13, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > Nice paper! Most of the suggestions are already realized in qmail and
> > postfix.
>
> I realize that Postfix already addresses many of these issues. I
> was involved in the earlier stages of the beta testin
At 2:28 PM +0200 1999/10/13, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> You don't know all the hacks that they made to sendmail to make
>> it perform at previously unheard of levels. ;-)
>
> Preciously unheard levels for sendmail?
No, previously unheard of levels -- period.
> Nice paper! Most o
Ben,
Majordomo has this facility, sending periodic reminder
messages; it is the bounces mailing list . I used it for a couple
months. The results were less than satisfactory. Most people stayed
on the bounces mailing list indefinately. ;(
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL P
Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 10:11 PM +0200 1999/10/12, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > They must be crazy to run a several million recipients
> > mailing list with sendmail...
>
> You don't know all the hacks that they made to sendmail to make
> it perform at previously unheard o
Ben Smithurst wrote...
> Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
>
> > i do NOT send the person mail to inform them that the are
> > being removed from the mailing lists, because their email is bouncing.
>
> How about sending a message to them once every 24 hours for, say,
> a week? I imagine some of tho
Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
> i do NOT send the person mail to inform them that the are
> being removed from the mailing lists, because their email is bouncing.
How about sending a message to them once every 24 hours for, say,
a week? I imagine some of those bounces are due to temporary
mis
Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 9:23 PM +0200 1999/10/12, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > I know some guys with list's in the three digit k to one digit M range
> > which don't have to deal with bounces at any time. I know it's hard
> > to believe but it's true and I can provide you with names where one
At 9:23 PM +0200 1999/10/12, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> I know some guys with list's in the three digit k to one digit M range
> which don't have to deal with bounces at any time. I know it's hard
> to believe but it's true and I can provide you with names where one
> can ask for confirmation.
Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
>
> thanks for the note on bouncefilter.
> i'll take a look at it.
> may be just what i am looking for..
> may be better than what i am using already.
> always interested in somethatngthat will help me
> do this better.
That is what I was talking about. With ezmlm ther
> "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > > > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > > > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > > >
"Jason K. Fritcher" wrote:
>
> I must say that Jonathan has been more than fair. About a year, maybe a year
> and a half ago, I didn't have a dedicated connection, and was doing smtp on
> demand, with my ISP spooling mail for me when I wasn't online. On average, I
> would get approximate, 20-30 m
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > > whoever runs t
thanks for the note on bouncefilter.
i'll take a look at it.
may be just what i am looking for..
may be better than what i am using already.
always interested in somethatngthat will help me
do this better.
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" i
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
> when the MTA gives up trying to deliver the mail, i call it
> bounced. so a 500 series error from the other MTA means the email has
> bounced.
Have you considered using bouncefilter for this? I'm using it for the
PostgreSQL mailnig lis
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> Whatever method he is using is not working very well, and it has not worked
> very well for a very long time.
I must say that Jonathan has been more than fair. About a year, maybe a year
and a half ago, I di
>
> Five years of people finding themselves mysteriously removed from lists, with
> no response other than, "Oh, I just remove people automatically without
> warning if I get too many bounces, and, no, I don't have any bounces from you
> but that must have been what happened."
some peopl
Sean,
you are subscribed in different ways to different lists.
cvs-all:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-alpha:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-bugs:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-chat:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-config:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-current:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
freebsd-emulation:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I know that this is not the place to hype one's own wares, but if your
> lists have fewer than 200 people, why not just use the free version of
> lyris. One of its many features is sophisticated bounce handling.
>
no problem.but the lists have thousands of subscribers
jmb
To
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 12:38:51PM -0700, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> >To those who _have_ experienced problems, remember this is a volunteer
> >effort. Would you flame someone on a public list if you found a bug
> >in the code they had contributed?
>
> If, after *FIVE YEARS* it hadn't been fixed, y
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>You have no way of knowing whether inbound mail to you has bounced, or
>not. Why are you so adamant that mail has not bounced?
Becuse I get lots of email, because I check it constantly, because any of a
half dozen sources for it bouncing would result in
On Mon, Oct 11, 1999 at 11:21:52AM -0700, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
>write:
> > only one comment. i remove people from the lists whenever
> >their email bounces. the threshhold is approximately 30 messages in a
> >24 hour period. mail may bounce due to D
I know that this is not the place to hype one's own wares, but if your
lists have fewer than 200 people, why not just use the free version of
lyris. One of its many features is sophisticated bounce handling.
-Kip
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Sean Eric Fagan wrot
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
> only one comment. i remove people from the lists whenever
>their email bounces. the threshhold is approximately 30 messages in a
>24 hour period. mail may bounce due to DNS problems, mail box full,
>MTA misconfiguration. i also remove people
>
> > >
> > > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > > whoever runs the mailing lists, then I
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nate Williams)
>
> > > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > >
> >
> > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > whoever runs the mailing lists, then I just don't ca
> > "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> > longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> > and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> > whoever runs the mailing lists, then I just don't care th
>
> "Accidental" removals from the lists are so common that I give up. I no
> longer even try to get back on them -- it's been happening for _years_ now,
> and I have made multiple complaints about it, and if it's not a problem for
> whoever runs the mailing lists, then I just don't care that mu
> > I Can't believe this email only produced TWO responses!
> > I would have thought that this wouldhav brought out the chainsaws!
> > Maybe no-one is listenning on 'arch' any more, or maybe 'arch' doesn't
> > work? (the only responders got it via 'core')
>
> Interesting. It appears that somehow
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nate writes:
>I note that David is no longer on the list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] was
>'unsubscribed, either accidentally or intentionally). Justin is gone,
>and many other folks I would have considered to be folks interested that
>were once subscribed...
"Accidental" re
[Mayhaps too many Cc:'s kept in order to reach relevant audience]
On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 02:57:55PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > I Can't believe this email only produced TWO responses!
> > I would have thought that this wouldhav brought out the chainsaws!
> > Maybe no-one is listenning on 'ar
> [Mayhaps too many Cc:'s kept in order to reach relevant audience]
Thanks, sorry about the X-posting...
> On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 02:57:55PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > I Can't believe this email only produced TWO responses!
> > > I would have thought that this wouldhav brought out the ch
> > > > Maybe no-one is listenning on 'arch' any more, or maybe 'arch' doesn't
> > > > work? (the only responders got it via 'core')
> > >
> > > Interesting. It appears that somehow I got 'unsubscribed' from arch.
> > > Not sure why, but in May I was subscribed, but I'm no longer subscribed.
> >
43 matches
Mail list logo
