I just read
http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html
The ideas there seem extremely demoralizing for somebody trying to
write an MTA for the traditional mail infrastructure.
In particular, it seems understandable why qmail-1.04 (not to mention
qmail-2.00) has not come out. Maybe it never will---and I bet
other side of the planet and what about email generated on the moon?
In short the technology is an interesting solution but I wonder
whether the cost/benefit will be as apparent to the general consumer
as the degraded user experience?
In particular, it seems understandable why qmail-1.04 (not
, it seems understandable why qmail-1.04 (not to mention
qmail-2.00) has not come out. Maybe it never will---and I bet not in
the next 6 months.
Who said that im2000 has anything to do with qmail?
At least: has anybody thought about implementing MXPS:
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Several
Felix von Leitner wrote:
At least: has anybody thought about implementing MXPS:
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Several people have.
But it is not worth the bother until a noticable part of the Internet
uses it.
Felix
What is the advantage of MXPS over SMTP options? It seems like
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 07:50:13PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Several people have.
But it is not worth the bother until a noticable part of the Internet
uses it.
Shades of the question I used to get when installing a web server:
"Why would you bother
I guess that depends on whether you think that im2000 is something
likely to be achieve in that year or that century... There are a
number of hurdles to surmount - in particular the issue of
notification. It strikes me that notification has the same issues that
email currently does - one
Thus spake Mark Delany ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt
Several people have.
But it is not worth the bother until a noticable part of the Internet
uses it.
Shades of the question I used to get when installing a web server:
"Why would you bother until a noticable part
Date: 1 Dec 2000 18:28:12 +
From: "Mark Delany" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another issue for my money is that of the lost of instantaneousness
that would result in having to (effectively) retrieve a web page for
each email you read. It sounds silly, but adding a mere second to the
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 02:29:04PM -0500, Lipscomb, Al wrote:
I would think that it would work something like this:
1) A dial in user (for example) would transfer a message to a well connected
server at their ISP. The ISP would provide the disk space used to store the
message.
...
5)
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:06:27PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:29:28PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-)
We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with
our qmail server.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like morercpthosts.
That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
only happening at
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like morercpthosts.
That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of
only happening at SIGHUP?
There is no performance
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like morercpthosts.
That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 06:02:44PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like
I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-)
We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with
our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files
and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located.
Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:36:08PM -0800, Ben Beuchler wrote:
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like morercpthosts.
Maybe we could make some inquiry of the patches people use and get
some numbers to convince djb to
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:36:08PM -0800, Ben Beuchler wrote:
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just
like morercpthosts.
That would mean that virtualdomains
Ben Beuchler writes:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You
Granted.
could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
Create a
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
Create a virtualdomain (say, example.com:example), and create a -owner
file (say, ~example/.qmail-foo-owner). Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The envelope sender gets set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If
that mail bounces, its delivery
Dave Kitabjian writes:
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
Create a virtualdomain (say, example.com:example), and create a -owner
file (say, ~example/.qmail-foo-owner). Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The envelope sender gets set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russ, where do you get
We need a qmail 1.04. The instructions in INSTALL are out of date.
People should be told to use ucspi-tcp and daemontools. The software
is fine. It's just the documentation that needs to change. As
always, I'm happy to do the work, if Dan is too busy.
Why am I so adament that qmail-1.04 MUST
At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote:
We need a qmail 1.04.
Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version.
Where can I find it and where I can find a tutorial on it.
Regards,
Ruprecht
---
INTERNOLIX Standards
Ruprecht Helms writes:
At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote:
We need a qmail 1.04.
Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version.
No. I'm suggesting that we need a qmail 1.04. It need only change
the documentation. The software is perfectly fine, although you could
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:36:53PM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
We need a qmail 1.04. The instructions in INSTALL are out of date.
People should be told to use ucspi-tcp and daemontools.
I 100% agree with that.
The most usefull patches should also be included in the
official distribution
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You
Granted.
could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
Ben
--
Ben Beuchler
Don, 09 Nov 2000 schrieb Russell Nelson:
We need a qmail 1.04. The instructions in INSTALL are out of date.
People should be told to use ucspi-tcp and daemontools. The software
is fine. It's just the documentation that needs to change. As
always, I'm happy to do the work, if Dan is too busy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Putting all (most needde parts) into a well
documented one would be a great thing.. imho :)
That won't happen.
-Dave
Russell Nelson wrote:
Ruprecht Helms writes:
At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote:
We need a qmail 1.04.
Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version.
No. I'm suggesting that we need a qmail 1.04. It need only change
the documentation. The software
Message-
From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:13:01PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
out of the patches - but I just trying to be flexible (big-concurrency
apears the only essential one in humble view.)
Which hopefully will be irrelevant with zeroseek.
Regards.
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You
Granted.
could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
31 matches
Mail list logo
