On Mon, 28 May 2001, Jamyn wrote:
On 28-May-2001 David T. Ashley wrote:
This is a very subjective matter, but the tone of the
automatically-generated messages seems too friendly.
Every now and then, someone sends a reply back to the
MAILER-DAEMON with Thanks or OK I'll re-send it,
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:02:14AM +0300, Okan CIMEN wrote:
*** DO NOT OPEN THE ATTACHMENT***
Our e-mail users receive lots of e-mails with no subject nor from adress but
just an attachment. Below is an example I have received before. As you may
I shall make no further comment.
Has anyone seen my umbrella? I think I left it here somewhere
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Alberto Dainotti wrote:
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but
I've read the documentation and I'm missing something..
In "REMOVE.binmail":
-
3. If the binmail binary was /bin/mail, make sure that
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would guess at around $10,000 for the installation, and then around
$1000/month ?
I'll do it for $7500 and $750 a month. Whatabargain!
Scott
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote:
don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
Why not? *clickclick* Did I miss something?
Scott
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
Dan to make the new version - perhaps made with cooperation with
"Dan" and "cooperate" on the same line...
all peoples, who have created useful patches and additional softwares,
useful additions becoming standard? that'll be the day.
See,
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
This should be Dan's decision. I don't apply to sugest, but
I suppose there are group of Dan's friends, group of advanced
users, who known very good qmail as well as Dan personaly.
Qmail is the best known by me MUA, so I will by happy, if
it
On 1 Dec 2000, Matt Brown wrote:
The only problem with doing that is the clueful admins with clueless
management who force everyone to use the Corporate Email Solution, ie
Outlook. Not me right now, but it was me in my last job.
Agreed. At my last consulting job... it took over 3 weeks to
Was the issue about an MX pointing to a CNAME ever resolved?
Scott
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jon Rust wrote:
Just got a call from an angry MSN user.
http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_512791,00.html
jon
It's too bad that companies can't set up two systems... one for people
who don't want to receive this spam crap and one for customers who lack
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:
Because you're stupid? But that's just one reason, Jay, so there's still
hope. Anyway:
man I love this list...
Scott
ps: cc:
How does one make a virtual user for an address at a "locals" site?
I can make them easily for virtusers. Stupid qmail doens't say
"which" maildir it can't cd to... so there's very little chance of
actually using that vague error.
Scott
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:35:06AM +1000, Brett Randall wrote:
strace /dev/gf0
No, I think you've got it wrong. I think its strace /dev/gf6 at the
moment...
for i in /dev/gf*; do
touch $i
strip $i
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
mount?
ok, ok
you're all gonna make me pull out a unix(1) story
that I wrote over a decade ago
the problem is.. so many of the commands
could be taken in a sexual way...
let me find it...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:
And would you kindly restrict your line width to something ~72
characters? Thanks.
oh, please... please publically flame me too!
Scott
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Stephen Bosch wrote:
Oh, and I couldn't resist:
Where do I begin? Asking the qmail discussion list for help on legitimate
tech support issues is like going to #linux channel and asking "what's a
kernel"?
BTW... what *IS* a kernel, anyway?
Stephen Bosch
RTF(q)M
Dave -- your message was great. I would hope that there would be
more like it on the list in the future.
I'll add one thing to the list, if I may be so bold, is a little bit
about approaching problem solving in a unix environment, remember, it's
usually PATH, PERMISSION
If linuxpeople is a
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
The favorite is always:
Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
Who cares why? STOP trying to think for me, ok?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
ok, I can't resist:
"WHY" ?
1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
again resolving the CNAME
btw: this isn't flame bait... if it's too off topic, since no one else
is participating, I'd be happy to discuss these things in private
emails.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot.
Yes, and we all know how much attention every
Is this offsubject?
Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g.
REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This
can be avoided if aliases are never used in the data
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:55:27PM -0500, Steven Rice wrote:
opposed to just A records?? I have found that qmail seems to have a
problem when it can't resolve the A record even though the MX is fully
resolveable to an IP...
Every MX record
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still await the days when one can post a legitimate question to a
list, without receiving a barrage of out of context messages with
personal opinions, and RTFM a**hole, especially when they send them to
the list. Perhaps this is
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Otherwise, I would really appreciate anyone who can provide me with relevant
information (minus the flames, and non-answer yielding responses) (Send
those off-list)
oh, and that's another thing these days... those who give you an
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Sometimes when I send mail to different people a few messages
are coming back to me as not sent. The reason is I guess everytime
the same (although the qmail's messages differ a little bit).
And these qmail's notes are like these two:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most
effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next
to your screen.
It says my print error occurred. How to fix?
Scott
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
"Shut Up and Go Away"
You're not gonna SUGA down yer comments, are ya?
Why not pour a little SUGA on this thread?
Scott
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Charles Cazabon wrote:
As the author doesn't even spell "qmail" correctly, I think it would be
safe to assume his opinion isn't particularly well researched.
Can you give me a list or any specifics on where the "fuzziness" is?
Scott
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
Don't use pine. Use mutt.
why?
Does mutt support PGP and compressed mailboxes/folders?
Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
207.99.50.35 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 207.99.50.35.
Amusing.
Scott
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:12:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: Scott D. Yelich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 26 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Claus has been attaching a signature to his messages which looks like
an attachment to a borken mail reader, but not to any compliant mail
reader.
I wouldn't even know about this if it weren't for nick's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Wasn't it claimed that 2.53 was safe -- only earlier versions
(alpha/beta?) were at risk? Seems like they should just release
another version to lessen the confusion.
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Kent Nilsen wrote:
The problem is that these viruses are based on user
stupidity/unawareness. A script attached to a mail sent to a Linux
system would do just as much damage to files the user has full
access to. If a user doubleclicks
-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 that people *didn't* post PGP signed messages where it isn't
necessary. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about my 9
line PGP signature. clue.
(2) I have already seen html email that has jabbascript that "decodes"
the content of the message. I assume this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I received a response regarding the CR/LF issue -- but it wasn't really
an "answer" to the question[s] that I asked. But that's ok, at least it
wasn't a flame.
Anyway, connect up to your favorite MTA. Issue:
mail from: blah
mail xxz: blah
rcpt to: blah
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(1) Is it better to write an SMTPd that is strict to the RFCs or
lenient? That is, where does one go to settle disputes -- or is it
better to sit back and miss mail due to differences in interpreting
the RFCs? Ie: if an smtpd accepts bare linefeeds, etc., is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
We all know the qmail documentation is perfect.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOORj81pGPE+AF6qBAQFChgP/ctdvtjCI4sEZSrMpjgVbunb8VX2y3Dzz
kTegfYBUs6v95NLoPCyK+npe+f+FCVwD0wy3EX655ACC29HCpxeuMxaT5U5MpC8F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Sigh.
Here we go again.
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBONKLGFpGPE+AF6qBAQHJWAQAtRxevMTwJMYbGw1xerYKgd7UMDgZagGF
KTILWlFSQNElBDc7lOdwTR0xORfrOxn7jyNvOWSEGEsQxrRUB2LUFxpk0XjNi3bN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Dan Barber wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good web interface for qmail with
maildirs, virtualhosts and sql backend which includes an
addressbook and is relatively easy to configure?
and one that doesn't require 15 other small packages to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Reuben King wrote:
Well, wouldn't you just like your cake and eat it too... :-)
Hey, I didn't ask for DOCUMENTATION did I?
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I'm sure people are going to jump on this, but please understand
that I am serious and I am not trolling.
Does anyone have a URL or reference for a simple smtp server or decent
(and brief!) documentation that could be used to create an smtp server?
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
Please do not flame me or tell me to read rfc 821.
Wouldn't dream of it.
Of course, if you tell us a little bit more about your needs or why
existing smtp servers aren't acceptable, you'd get more useful
information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Jason Haar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:46:59AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote:
| forward "${DEFAULT}@yy"
Absolutely what I was after :-)
Bit of a ba%*tard to find that one in the man pages...
Yippee - can finish the job now... :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:29:03AM -0500,
Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Wilson Fletcher wrote:
I ried to send to wilson@[203.26.11.154] but it failed. Can someone tell me why ?
Because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Which most of the English speaking world would interpret as "My mother
can't do that", possibly with an implied "(but just about anyone else
can)". This type of idiom leads to ambiguity, and is a barrier to
communication--its only purpose is to be cute.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Paul Trippett wrote:
But for Us European people EST stands for Eastern Summer Time
and what is UTC and where is the time zone for that ?
OIC, JIC, I use UTP at work at UPC which is in CET, ETC.
I thought UTC was GMT... is that not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
So my point is, unless you like reading silly analyses of grammatical
constructs in the qmail list, you should be careful to express
yourself unambiguously. -Dave
Oh, puhleeze do teach me how to be a pedantic asshole!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
another mail "forwarding" question/issue:
I have registered yelich.{com,net,org} and I want to use qmail to accept
mail on one machine.. where you can set up a domain plus host such as
"tommy.yelich.com" where I can then use a .qmail-default so that all
mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
What command would people use ... using stock qmail
to take all mail coming in from a certain address
and do something withith?
not really a procmail... just say, send "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
is sending in mail -- and I want to send only that mail to
another
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Unless you have Windblows boxes on your network, you have nothing to worry
about. In Unix, you have to be root in order to sniff packets.
er, is this supposed to be funny?
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sam wrote:
"Beautiful boundaries between the different handler programs" sounds nice
in principle. In practice, however, sooner or later you reach the point
where further modularization adds nothing of value, but increases
obfuscation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
Mark writes:
When connecting to my pop server, it takes between 20-30 seconds to
connect. After connecting, everything is fast. I have tested my client
with pop servers on other machines and I don't experience this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Sam wrote:
Speaking for myself, I just refuse to accept mail from these people.
I agree...
So, unless I succesfully resolve the IP address backwards, and I resolve it
forwards to the same IP address, I reject the mail. If I get a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Which is no more valid a data point than any other single observation,
but since Ben is explicitly assuming that other people's experience is
the same as his (which we all do, and is the right assumption in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Perhaps DJB could answer this best but I'm wondering why
the home directory has to be owned by the user and if it's
not, .qmail files don't seem to be used.
I would like to have the home directory for a user to be owned by root
so the user can not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
There's a mirror at ftp://ftp.qmail.org/pub/koobera.math.uic.edu/
which uses a more conventional (translation: insecure) FTP server.
What do you mean insecure?
What's the deal with DJB's FTP with no LS and crazy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Dan's anonftpd chroots itself, and there's no way out. Crackers simply
cannot break authentication because there *is* no authentication.
Anybody can download only the files in the ftpd directory. Anything
else
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
I didn't say anonftpd was secure. I said that the ftp server I'm
using was insecure (wuftpd -- check it out on www.rootshell.com), and
that by comparison, anonftpd was secure. Everything in the security
field is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Gustavo Rios wrote:
Does any body here knows something about rootshell attack?
According some people at bos-br, they were hacked through qmail, which has
some bug! (Nothing sure).
A recent attack? Or the one that took them down months
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Gustavo Rios wrote:
.qmail* (Are you referring to /var/qmail/alias/.qmail* ?)
I'm really not able to say what happened to rootshell -- but since I'm
underconstant attack -- I can tell you what I have seen and what I have
done (with
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
the RFC, it will just state something like "MX records can't point to
CNAMES" -- and never really state why this is so.
You were given the answer to this two days ago and didn't bother to read
it. Russ just answered you again, let's see if you
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
Threats of law suits
should I elaborate?
rcpthosts... need I say more?
... anyway, wait until you get some idiot who wants to sue you because
you are no longer an open relay.
Scott
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
In your negative response you wrote GFY.
That was your PUBLIC response here on this list.
Your PRIVATE email to me regarding making the
web site was hardly "Good For You" and you know it.
There are two kinds of people. Honest people and dishonest
I'm really getting tired of this lists hostility. I thought perhaps it
might have just been me or it might be that some people here are on the
metal-rag but I'm not sure I can stand it any longer. I assume
there will be an exodus soon.
I have already seen people prove their ignorance and
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Chris Garrigues wrote:
Lucky me. I'm going to be away from my email for a week.
I hope Scott and Adam and whoever else has been filling my mailbox
with shit will be done with their ravings by the time I get back.
I'm sorry you feel my questions and issues with qmail
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called
an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called
an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot.
Call me an idiot... I don't care. I appreciate all the
Perhaps I missed the responses regarding the following the first time
they went out to the list -- and if so, I'm sorry...
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:51:12AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
(1) Did anyone answer this? What should be done for a site
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
I dunno about you but when I ask a question in a public forum I usually
actively look for responses. To not even make a cursory check before asking
again is rude to everyone on this list, and especially the people who
responded the first time.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
And why SHOULD anyone care about your hacker troubles, and your lack
of a firewall, and your overwhelming email traffic? Would you like
someone to read your email to you, or build you a firewall?
Well, I certainly do. He seemed to describe already
There are appropriate places for discussion of those topics, and they
exist so you dont have to discuss those on lists where it is
inappropriate.
Well, now we certainly are off topic. John -- I talk in many forums.
It seems each has its own designs on what is appropriate and what is
not.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(cobalt) failed
Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: refused connect from 216.221.160.30
dig -x output...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Any help would be appreciated:
(1) Does anyone have a setup where sendwhale is on a client machine
and needs to forward/relay through a qmail machine? I can't seem to
get Dj and DM to make sendwhale happy. I either get MX goes back to
DM or Dj or I get Dj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
Scott D. Yelich writes:
Wha? Why so? Sendmail supresses dup addresses before sending. It's a
very nice feature.
Scott, you really should go review the list archive before you open
your mouth. This is an old
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 May 1999, John R. Levine wrote:
Actually, I was just asking why couldn't qmail supress dupes on local
addresses.
The real reason is because it's the wrong tool.
Right. This is the answer that I believe the most. I'm still straining
to try to think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Antje Koschel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can I prevent that multiple copies of a mail addressed to several aliases
pointing to the same user are delivered? One copy is just fine.
You'd have to assemble a meta-list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 18 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
This is completely unfair.
No it't not. It's the truth.
Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own
bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just
because he's gay.
Eric Allman's GAY?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
"Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
security [965] gcc -L/usr/ucblib -lucb taildir.c -o taildir
security [966] ./taildir .
/taildir: scandir: : No such file or directory
I also can't seem to get a -stat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
!block rant
Seriously, Scott, yesterday you couldn't even understand the need for
taildir, and now you're complaining you can get it to work. What's
your angle? Jeff Hayward wrote a small utility for his own use and
shared it with others because he
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
Dave just posted it. See earlier in this thread.
Right. Let me apologize to everyone. I was confused by the seemingly
too easy question/problem/issue and I was only trying to help. I'll
start a mailing list now where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
Before I do a bit of coding, has anyone written a script to identify the
most recent log file and tail it, preferably switching files when the
log file turns over?
Jeff Hayward's taildir does what you want. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
"Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with something like: tail -f `ls -rt | tail -1`
Doesn't notice when a new file is created, which cyclog is want to do.
-Dave
Um... so is the trigger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
Erm, nothing. Except that this won't switch files when the log rolls
over. `ls -rt | tail -l' will only be executed once at start up.
Right, sorry all... I was just trying to help. I didn't notice the
need to type in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
| Segmentation fault
| mail:/usr/local/src#
| seg faults on me :(
Try running "taildir name of dir with cyclog files in it" instead of
just taildir.
Troy
solaris 2.5.1
security [965] gcc -L/usr/ucblib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Russ went a little too far, I think. "Ability to ask questions that
demonstrate that one has read the documentation and that include at
least some of the relevant details" would be good enough. One can't
expect someone to know exactly which information is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Bill Parker wrote:
p.s. - I also believe that most of the judges who make up the 9th
circuit court of appeals smoke crack while on the bench...
Are these guys related to the people who felt it was necessary to get
a search warrant to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Sam wrote:
Durham, Kenneth J writes:
I think im just going to go through the whole setup agian from scratch. Can
someone give me a good place to get documantation from start to finish to
get this thing up and working. I also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, back in the hazy dawn of time, I recall that INSTALL was all I needed
to get Qmail running.
Short, sweet, and to the point.
Well, I was just being... you know, myself.
The point is, to get QMAIL installed, yes, the INSTALL seems to work
- -- but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Richard Shetron wrote:
THere is a rebuttal of the test at:
http://www.linux-hw.com/~eric/mindcraft.html
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
etc, yadda yadda yadda ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
But what is " qmail-pipe " ? I can't find no docs on it. Thanks for the
help guys ! ---gordie
It's there!
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNwvgRVvCesh4C4FtAQE/7wQAjMPqv6Ne3bcs2vfLq8jvoamNPD4odnMm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Does anyone have a comprehensive page for qmail address filtering?
Specifically (any of these, I'm not even sure they all exist).
Bad Mail From addresses, Bad Mail To addresses, maildrop system filters,
maildrop user filters, tcpserver access lists, tcp-env
All told, Mitnick will serve another 8 months and then be freed on
parole. Stipulations of the plea also entail that he not personally
benefit from the incidents which lead up to his arrest (e.g., no big "book
deal" for personal gain), and that he make restitution to the adversely
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, blip wrote:
Isnt this the same guy that was "jailed" without being charged?
morgan
*sigh* No, he was charged. He has spent like 4 years in prison and he's
going to get a plea bargain deal where he'll probably get 5 years, of
which he's already served 4.
Another reason
If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and
rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned)
If this is the case.. then why have macros be able to be executed in
the first place? It seems that people *want* this convenience, but then
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
From: BLURB3:* HCMSSC support---language-independent RFC 1893 error codes
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/hcmssc.txt
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto.html
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/djb.html
www.qmail.org
Earlier versions of the qmail
K "Bill Gates? Isn't he the guy who invented the Internet, back in 1995?"
Nah, that was Al Gore.
Oh, ya'll want me to rant about mickeysoft?
just give the word...
Scott
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
From: Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm mostly interested in the last part. I sure would be nice if the
docs didn't assume that the consumer/installer hasn't made the non-qmail
or non-djb choice. You know, sometimes it is nice to use
hey all, here is a quickie little program i wrote to see exactly what
rblsmtp is doing for you, here is an example of the output:
#!/bin/sh
echo "RBL-Stats v1.0 by xs [EMAIL PROTECTED]"
echo ""
echo "checking your logfile, this'll take a few."
cat $1|grep rblsmtp ~/.rbltmp.bak
echo
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
