On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:56:28AM +0200, Magnus Bodin wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:59:24PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
Secondly what does that (#4.4.1) mean? I can't find any paragraph
number 4.4.1 in the documentation.
It's defined in RFC 1839 http://rfc1839.x42.com/
4
as they're bounce
messages in response to some mail I sent and I suspect my reply
address may be setup incorrectly to a domain inside the firewall.
Secondly what does that (#4.4.1) mean? I can't find any paragraph
number 4.4.1 in the documentation.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL
changes to imap following
compilation.
Perhaps imap requires some configuration in some files???
Yes it does, you need to edit one or two entries in imapd.config, in
particular you need to set ADDRESS to your real IP address.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but neither
system actually runs IMAP and there seems little prosect of it.
Also (more on topic) what's the simplest IMAP server to set up with
qmail on a Linux system (Mandrake 6.1)?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http
.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 02:20:26AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Chris Green wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
Well I have to admit I have some sympathy with him there, I'd much
prefer
the signature.
Yes, OK, I'll go for that! If I don't see the extra junk I'm not to
fussed about it as it doesn't use much bandwidth.
As it is the PGP stuff just annoys me at about the same level as
excessive sigs do, somewhat but not enough to really scream about.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED
variable.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
Did this not get through to the list when I sent it yesterday? I
didn't see any responses and one usually gets something even if it is
just RTFM! ;-)
- Forwarded message from Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
I get the occasional deferral like the following:-
Mar 16 11:24:36 server
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:00:32AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Mar 00, at 8:50, Chris Green wrote:
I get the occasional deferral like the following:-
Mar 16 11:24:36 server qmail: 953205876.814716 delivery 4: deferral:
Sorry
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 11:00:05AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Mar 00, at 9:46, Chris Green wrote:
Well this doesn't seem to agree with what I'm seeing, the incorrectly
addressed mail was sent to someone@enterprises.net, whereas
notifier.
Thanks, someone else has pointed me in that direction too. It looks
like I'm going to be changing my qmail installation for the first time
in months (years?).
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
for several days before
they find out that they've mis-typed an address (or, as in this case,
someone has their return address set up wrong).
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[plus lots more similar]
I have tried 'kill -ALRM qmail-send' but that doesn't seem to
encourage anything to happen. What do I have to do to get rid of these
messages? It doesn't matter too much if there lost even.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 09:39:58PM -, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27 Jan 00, at 20:31, Chris Green wrote:
I have tried 'kill -ALRM qmail-send' but that doesn't seem to
encourage anything to happen.
Try running qmail-tcpok _before_ ALRMing
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Mark Delany wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 08:31:09PM +, Chris Green wrote:
I have 36 messages which appear to be permanently stuck in the queue,
I'm running qmail 1.03 with the holdremote patch on Mandrake Linux
6.1.
Normally everything
try and call /bin/mail?
I'm getting error messages from inn and a couple of other things as a
consequence of this.
Presumably one moves the original /bin/mail (or deletes it) and puts a
link to a qmail executable in its place but I can't see what at the
moment.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 10:06:41AM +0200, Mirko Zeibig wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 08:56:51AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
One WIn32 mailer that seemed quite competant when I was looking is
Pmail98 (www.southsoft.com), it has OS/2 ancestry which may explain
its sanity.
Yes, PMMail is one
limitations. There is a
new home page for it by the way, some people are trying again to
support it. There is a version 1.3.2 out with a few bug fixes.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 08:29:02AM -0400, Russell P. Sutherland wrote:
* Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Oct 1999 04:13]:
Having moved my qmail installation from a RedHat 5.2 setup to Mandrake
Linux 6.1 the one remaining thing I haven't sorted out is what exactly
one is supposed
known as M)
Mulberry (from Cyrus I believe)
One WIn32 mailer that seemed quite competant when I was looking is
Pmail98 (www.southsoft.com), it has OS/2 ancestry which may explain
its sanity.
For the others there seems little that's any better (or worse) than
Eudora and Pegasus.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL
to get rid of sendmail and postfix both of
which are installed in the default Mandrake 6.1 setup.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 05:49:07PM -0400, Chris Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 10:40:11PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
I have just moved my qmail installation from RedHat 5.2 Linux to
Mandrake 6.1 Linux (RedHat 6.1 based).
I have got just about everything working, the local tests
' contract you can
still (under basic copyright law) modify the software etc. and thus
bypass the bit that asks you to accept the new terms anyway.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
me a complete moron. A little sympathy from
experienced usesrs is always welcome.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
a dedicated sysadmin. Even a ten person
company will probably have only one person who spends *some* of their
time each day on computer administration. Lots of companies with
fewer than ten people now have a small network.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wo
for various reasons.
Most of these people are either home users who certainly can't afford
professional help or small businesses who could afford something but
(probably) not the sort of amount a good sysadmin would cost for a day
or two.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL
a static
IP address.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
to be the best and most
secure. I like the thought that has gone into them.
Quite, but it would be *even better* if qmail was as easy to set up as
Mercury. Maybe what I'm after is qmail-lite which is easy to set up
rather than efficient.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED
in the way of alternatives to qmail (and they're
more difficult to configure) so where does the small business go?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Justin Bell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 01:22:51PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
# The problem is that there is no simple alternative which one can
# recommend for the SoHo environment. The reason I chose to install
# qmail on my home system
you switch off a flag.
I can't give exact details of my setup from here as I'm at work but if
you'd like to know more then E-Mail my home address below.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
n _*maxine*_) forward maxine; esac
at the top of your existing ~alias/.qmail-default.
Ah, that sounds ideal, thanks Dan.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:55:07PM +, Robin Bowes wrote:
Chris Green wrote:
man qmail-users:
The file /var/qmail/users/assign assigns addresses to users. For
example,
=joe.shmoe:joe:503:78:/home/joe:::
says that mail for joe.shmoe should be delivered
is an MUA)
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
not an unusual set up, how do other people handle it?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
, or incoming. Then it would be on the
same level as the Maildirs created by mutt.
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
and location of a
user's Maildir or does it *have* to be ~/Maildir? If it can be
changed which configuration files need changing?
--
Chris Green ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.isbd.co.uk/
38 matches
Mail list logo
