Harald Hanche-Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like you need the serialmail from DJB's collection.
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/serialmail.html
It contains a program that will blast the contents of a maildir to a
given host using smtp. The idea is that qmail stores mail for the
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 4927 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1999 12:42:17 -
Received: from zopie.attic.vuurwerk.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by koek.attic.vuurwerk.nl with QMTP; 13 Feb
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter Gradwell wrote:
Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is
delivered directly to them if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you,
and then you dleiver it using the above scenario.
in general this is bad idea: the lowest valued MX
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:34:02 +, Chris Green wrote:
2.nd problem:
Even if I fix that... I have 2 internet mail accounts (POP3),
and I'm subscribed to different mailinglists. So if mail is
sent to the mailinglist it MUST be sent from the account I've
subscribed from.
How do I implement
On Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 10:16:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Harald Hanche-Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like you need the serialmail from DJB's collection.
[...]
That's what I was thinking too, but that doesn't take care of this part:
- Donna Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
|
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
deliver to a secondary MX is Very Broken(tm).
Rok Papez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mutt also runs on OS/2 and Windows 95/98/NT ?? Don't think so,
plus his POP3 support is lousy. For terminal mode I prefer pine
Mutt could possibly work on Win32 boxes (and maybe OS/2) under the
CygWin system. It's worth a try. And if you don't like
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing
At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
dialup, but I'm my own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:01:25PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:04:55PM +, Peter Gradwell wrote:
At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +, Richard Letts wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 11:43:39PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
At 11:45 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15; and the
traffic for each list is less than 3 a
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:37:22PM +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
hello,
with the release of the new linux kernel, the limit of concurrent
processes is now raised. according to conf-spawn we cannot raise the qmail
concurrency limit past 256. is there any reason for this?
Qmail
Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid
that it will not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
Yes; I don't know WHAT it is, but I have headers. See below...
First, some background, and another reason the Primary MX isn't always
Carefull, 255 = , 256=0001
Dirk
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 03:47:58PM -0500, Tim Pierce wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 06:37:22PM +0800, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
hello,
with the release of the new linux kernel, the limit of concurrent
processes is now raised. according
IS THERE A FREE BREAKFAST?
Your Favorite Brands of Cereals, Coffee and Paper Goods DELIVERED
TO YOUR FRONT DOOR FOR $1,00 (incl. SH). E.g. How about a 12
pack of Northern Quilted Bathroom Tissue delivered to your door
for ONLY $1.00! PLUS, make commissions telling your friends and
Ahmm. Oops. Yes, my 256 should have been a 257.
Dirk
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 05:23:04PM -0800, Mike Holling wrote:
Carefull, 255 = , 256=0001
256 = 0001
257 = 0001 0001
- Mike
On Sat 1999-02-13 (15:34), Tim Pierce wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 1999 at 11:43:39PM +1100, Mark Delany wrote:
At 11:45 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Dongping Deng wrote:
Let's consider a hypothetical situation: a machine needs to host 100,000
mailing lists, each list has subscribers, say, less than 15;
qmail Digest 13 Feb 1999 11:00:01 - Issue 550
Topics (messages 21881 through 21952):
Patch to disable .qmail support for ordinary users
21881 by: "Niall R. Murphy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still confused regarding relaying/rcpthosts
21882 by: Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
