If something has been discussed before on the list why can't
we discuss it again?
Because it wastes peoples time. Look at the archives if you are
interested.
Frank
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
| If something has been discussed before on the list why can't
| we discuss it again?
|
| Because it wastes peoples time. Look at the archives if you are
| interested.
|
| Frank
|
What if you want to take part of the
Sorry for the late reply. It's my fault.
On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Todd A. Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Balazs Nagy wrote:
- /var/qmail/man/: man pages should be eliminated in favor to html
pages, but it would be great if there would have a correct html2man
Fredrik Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:14:51AM +0100, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
| If something has been discussed before on the list why can't
| we discuss it again?
|
| Because it wastes peoples time. Look at the archives if you are
| interested.
|
| Frank
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
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
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:14:20PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
Mark Delany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why does qmail have to be patched to use LDAP? Why not use a script
which extracts user information from the LDAP database, puts it in passwd
format, and feeds it to
On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
impressed with the modularity of qmail. The only patches I see as
necessary anywhere are big-concurrency and big-todo. Everything else is
just sugar.
Yes. In the past I wrote patches to qmail but these are just salted the
In my humble opinion Qmail is riped to a new version. Here're my
suggestions. These tips aren't enough for a 2.0 version but for a 1.04 or
1.1.
- djblib changes
new library functions
- daemontools
service configurator like in djbdns
- patches
big-dns patch
- new features
per-user
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:44:16PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
- new features
per-user handling of /var/qmail/users/
using ~/.qmail/... instead of .qmail-... (or it should check each)
This is configurable. man qmail-users
qmail-remote QMTP and QMQP handling (smtproutes,
On Fri, Mar 02 2001, Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:44:16PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
- new features
per-user handling of /var/qmail/users/
using ~/.qmail/... instead of .qmail-... (or it should check each)
This is configurable. man
I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in
the official qmail release.
- Original Message -
From: "Balazs Nagy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Subject: Re: New qmail version request
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Paco Gracia wrote:
I'd like to see a configure option to support smtp with authentication in
the official qmail release.
Please stop this thread. A new qmail version is not likely to happen,
and if it does, it'll probably contain very few patches that
Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
peter@datalocc:
ss.nl Subject: Re: New qmail version request
I agree...
qmail won't have new versions???
It's a great program but it's far from being complete... imho
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: New qmail version request
Please forgive my naivete as I am
.
Dion Vansevenant
Internetwork Administrator
MRO.com
Peter van
Dijk To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
peter@datalocc:
ss.nl Subject: Re: New qmail version
request
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
Dan's got plans for qmail, he just hasn't released
Peter,
Of course you can do all of these things. It isn't that difficult either.
But it would be nice if I didn't have to patch the program to install a
filter. I know how to patch the program. I know C, and can figure out
how the patch works, etc. I am a new qmail administrator and had it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
No, it's not dead or dying.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
What is wrong with some of the requests that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing a
statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
This is a complicated and rather politicized set
: Re: New qmail version request
Please forgive my naivete as I am new to qmail and this list, but hearing
a
statement such as yours, Peter, gives me pause to consider: If there may
not be future development, am I betting on a dead (or dying) horse?
What is wrong with some of the requests
"Edward J. Allen III" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is nothing wrong with incorporating common patches into the
distribution. This is how open source development works.
qmail is not open source. It does not obey condition 3 of the Open
Source Definition:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there's a lot of time that I stopped using the pure qmail-1.03 with LWQ
instructions. And I bet a lot of are in the same situation.
What patch(es) did you find necessary?
Isn't it a lot of work? And I need to install gcc friends in most machines
just to install
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:25:21 -0600
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, efficient, and
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 source development works.
qmail is not open source. It does not obey
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:39:28PM -0600, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:25:21 -0600
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
unsubscribe
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, efficient, and "correct", and
anyone who wants to
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Balazs Nagy wrote:
- /var/qmail/man/: man pages should be eliminated in favor to html
pages, but it would be great if there would have a correct html2man
generator (it must not to be the part of the package)
Um, man is a standard. Man is searchable. Man
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 05:17:01PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
