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
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 - 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
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
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
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
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.
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
[...] 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
"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,
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
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:
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
