You are correct. If you don't use it then it costs you nothing.
--
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > qmail-queue will slow down mail processing (did in
Paul Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> qmail-queue will slow down mail processing (did in my case) so if its a
> medium/high volume smtp server then you better plan for some additional
> bogomips to fire off the scanning.
Note that the QMAILQUEUE patch alone should not increase server load b
Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, board master wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've already installed:
>
> Qmail 1.03+Vpopmail 4.10+sqwebmail+daemontools+ezmlm+autoresond+ucspi
> (PHWEW!)
>
> and I was wondering what would happen i
board master <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've already installed:
>
> Qmail 1.03+Vpopmail 4.10+sqwebmail+daemontools+ezmlm+autoresond+ucspi
> (PHWEW!)
>
> and I was wondering what would happen if I patched a brand new qmail 1.03
> with the qmailqueue
Hi,
I've already installed:
Qmail 1.03+Vpopmail 4.10+sqwebmail+daemontools+ezmlm+autoresond+ucspi
(PHWEW!)
and I was wondering what would happen if I patched a brand new qmail 1.03
with the qmailqueue patch (I want to use virus scanning) and installed the
patched qmail over itself. Wo
Perry Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had posted a question earlier regarding a problem sending mail to
> SMTP. I have a snippet below from recordio when I send a message body
> containgn "123" . The last few lines of the SMTP transaction produced
> by Outlook ..
>
> Jun 26 07:42:
I had posted a question earlier regarding a problem sending mail to
SMTP. I have a snippet below from recordio when I send a message body
containgn "123" . The last few lines of the SMTP transaction produced
by Outlook ..
Jun 26 07:42:33 fs1 smtpd: 993566553.076015 13548 < X-MimeOLE: Prod
This is a followup to a request for the output from recordio. I
previously posted my problem that I can't send email to qmail-smtp
(1.03) using Outlook or Netscape with 2 different laptops, but can with
another laptop and ~12 other Dell workstations. If I get on subnet
different from the one tha
Perry Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have two Dell laptops, an Inspiron 2500 and a Latitude C800 that can
> perform all network functions, but cannot (reliably) send email to an
> SMTP serverusing Outlook 2000.
Reproduce the problem with a manual telnet session to port 25 on the server.
email once after rebooting and then it hangs. I have installed a
store-bought version of Windows 2000 (not Dell's OEM version) and got
the same results.
I put either PCMCIA card in a Compaq laptop and I can send email fine.
If I look closely at the message that the SMTP server(qmail
I vote to leave it alone. Let the configuring individual invoke
/bin/sh in QMAILQUEUE herself if she understands and still wants to
make that particular convenience vs. overhead tradeoff.
Valued at $0.02,
JS
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:26:28PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> I've been contempl
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What kind of problems?
Maybe when $QMAILQUEUE is constructed within a shell somewhere. You possibly
would have doubled quoting.
Hm. This case would be beyond the average user anyway so the one who does
it should know what he/she is doing.
Regards, Fra
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:21:13AM +0200, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > than the obvious overhead of adding /bin/sh to the execution path? Is
> > this overhead significant enough to make such a modification a bad idea?
> Are there quoting problems to expec
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:26:28PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> I've been contemplating rewriting the patch to do an exec of
> { "/bin/sh", "-c", $QMAILQUEUE } instead of exec'ing $QMAILQUEUE as-is.
> This would allow for putting the contents of the script named by
> $QMAILQUEUE (which is frequen
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> than the obvious overhead of adding /bin/sh to the execution path? Is
> this overhead significant enough to make such a modification a bad idea?
Are there quoting problems to expect? If yes, I would leave the patch
the way it is now.
Regards, Frank
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:37:21PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> Appended is a patch to qmail-1.03 that causes any program that would run
> qmail-queue to look for an environment variable QMAILQUEUE. If it is
> present, it is used in place of the string "bin/qmail-queue" w
Hi Folks;
I have been using Majordomo-1.94.5 and Qmail-1.03, for a while now using the
mjinject mini script, but just recently I noticed everytime a mail is sent
to one list there are several child processes that seem to be polling even
though the mail is delivered to list members.
ps -ax shows
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus spake Jocelyn Clement ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Anybody has any luck or experience with this OS.
>
>What kind of question is this?
Sounds reasonble to me.
>Why don't you just try and see if it works?
Maybe he's got better things to than buil
Thus spake Jocelyn Clement ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Anybody has any luck or experience with this OS.
What kind of question is this?
Why don't you just try and see if it works?
ARGH!
Felix
Anybody has any luck or experience with this OS.
Josh
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 04:08:38PM +, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:17:10AM -0500, Jocelyn Clement wrote:
>
> > This is it: I ran the "make setup check" and it generates an error
> > message on the "qmail-local.c" saying that there is no definition
> > of the "timestruct_t" in
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:17:10AM -0500, Jocelyn Clement wrote:
> This is it: I ran the "make setup check" and it generates an error
> message on the "qmail-local.c" saying that there is no definition
> of the "timestruct_t" in the "stat.h" file.
>
> I am using the SCO development sys
Hi...!
I have very much difficulties compiling qmail-1.03.
This is it: I ran the "make setup check" and it generates an error
message on the "qmail-local.c" saying that there is no definition
of the "timestruct_t" in the "stat.h" file.
Corey Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running into the CNAMEs error that everyone else seems to have trouble
> with at some point in time. I have Bruce's qmail-patch18 version of qmail
> (which includes the big-dns patch) but I'm still having quiet a lot of
> trouble. Here's an exam
and I
believe it's a related problem. Btw, I didn't have this problem on RedHat
6.0 with the same files (cept it was qmail-1.03+patches-17).
Appreciate any help!
\=/,_-===-_--_-==-_-===-_--_
| @___oo ( Corey
Hi,
I am trying to install open-smtp4 to enable pop
before smtp. Its posing a few problems by not writing the remote ip into the
file /etc/smtp.filter.newer. It only writes
":allow,RELAYCLIENT=// " into the file. I have
changed tcpmakectl to tcp rules in pop3-record .
Can someone g
Hi,
I am trying to install open-smtp4 to enable pop
before smtp. Its posing a few problems by not writing the remote ip into the
file /etc/smtp.filter.newer. It only writes
":allow,RELAYCLIENT=// " into the file. I have
changed tcpmakectl to tcp rules in pop3-record .
Can someone gi
Thus said "Keith Smith" on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:56:09 MST:
> I received an error ""Shadow-Utils is needed by qmail-1.03-6
Sounds like you need to install the shadow-utils RPM...
Andy
--
[---[system uptime]]
10:41pm
Hi All,
I am trying to install qmail on Caldera eServer 2.3.
1) I downloaded the file qmail-1.03-6.src.rpm onto my win98 machine.
2) copied to Linux box into directory /rpm_qmail
3) rpm -i qmail-1.03-6.src.rpm
4) cd /usr/src/OpenLinux/SPEC
5) rpm -bb qmail.spec
6) cd /usr/src/OpenLinux/RPMS
Magnus Bodin writes:
> A future qmail needs a qmail-lint shipped with it.
Note: I did *not* pay Magnus to say that.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd
[smtproutes vs mailroutes]
my point of view:
if smtrproutes exists, they should be read and used. so far nothing changes
against stock qmail.
if mailrotes exists, the user has abviously read the INSTALL or README.
There's a good place to mention that mailroutes have precedence over
smtproutes
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:48:26AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
>
> Or imagine:
>
> - I have a stock qmail server with smtproutes,
> - I decide that I want to use QMTP,
> - I setup an appropriate mailroutes file,
> - It doesn't work, because I forgot to patch qmail.
That's not a problem with the
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:36:36AM -0500, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > Why? When upgrading from 1.03 to 1.04 the instructions will tell you
> > to rename the file.
>
> Is Dan putting out a 1.04? I thought he was working on qmail2. Did
> I miss something?
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:33:48PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > I don't see what the problem is. If you really want smtproutes handled
> > like it is now, make a symlink from mailroutes to smtproutes.
>
> A symlink get's the j
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> >
> > backward comp
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:16:22AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:08:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:59:49AM -0500, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:39:42PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
>
> backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
Why
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:58:05PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> > that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> > backw
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:40:04PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
> that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
> backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
That I can acc
Hi
My favourit still is: single file called smtproutes. Maybe add an option
that if smtproutes don't exist and there is a mailroutes use that instead.
backward compatibility is a must, so smtproutes must be read.
Best regards.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:42:07PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> O
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:21:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best...
> I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though.
> > My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for
> > smtp and qmtp, and for the instr
If people prefer two files, then this is what I find best...
I still prefer a single file, called smtproutes, though.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:36:25AM +, James Raftery wrote:
> My preference is for seperate files to specify artificial routes for
> smtp and qmtp, and for the instructions in
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:00:49AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory
> >
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> >
> > But I still prefer having smtp and qmtp separately (keeping the good
> > tradition of the multiple qmail conf files)
>
> But what about precedence as Johan
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:26:21AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> >
> > One comment: if smtproutes is compatible with mailroutes, why not use
> > smtproutes instead of mailroutes?
>
> Because the name is too confining... It implies smtp. mail is more generic
> :)
> But I still prefer having s
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:00:49AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory
> > allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's
>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory
> allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's
> code. I have released a new version, available from
>
> http://www.almqvis
Hi!
There patch I released earlier wasn't quite as careful about memory
allocation (or rather, failures of memory allocation) as the rest of Dan's
code. I have released a new version, available from
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
I'm still very eager to hear your comments. I'll stick wit
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:03:30PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> I think there may be a little glitch left: an explicit SMTP route may not
> be able to override MXPS-based QMTP routing. I'll look into this later
> today.
Nope, that seems to work just fine...
> I will also look inte patching qma
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 01:48:02AM +, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
> > I made a few modifications to Russell's patch. You can now specify routes
> > for QMTP just as you can for SMTP. Ths filename is changed to
> > control/mailroutes and the format changed a tad, but the old file will
> > still wo
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 07:08:17PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I made a few modifications to Russell's patch. You can now specify routes
> for QMTP just as you can for SMTP. Ths filename is changed to
> control/mailroutes and the format changed a tad, but the old file will
> still work
Hi!
I made a few modifications to Russell's patch. You can now specify routes
for QMTP just as you can for SMTP. Ths filename is changed to
control/mailroutes and the format changed a tad, but the old file will
still work if moved.
No warranties and YMMV.
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Martin Volesky wrote:
> That's the strange thing. There is nothing in any log, and the console
> is either dead or says "Unable to handle kernel NULL dereference
> pointer" or something to that effect. I never catch the core dumps. I
> did catch one when I ran it through superv
On 07/12/00 at 6:54 AM Strange wrote:
>The box "comes down"? Meaning...? Any errors written to console? What
>happens? When you say it seems more stable without Daemontools, on what
>do you base that? More detail would help a lot -- log files around the
>crash time, crash dumps if any, etc
>Never happened to me, and I have been running qmail under sparclinux for
>years.
>
>It is not a qmail issue. Try another kernel version or look for flaky
>RAM chips.
Thanks Felix. I think I'll try the RAM sawp. I have two other identical boxes. Could
you please tell me what distro you are runn
On 07/12/00 at 6:54 AM Strange wrote:
>The box "comes down"? Meaning...? Any errors written to console? What
>happens? When you say it seems more stable without Daemontools, on what
>do you base that? More detail would help a lot -- log files around the
>crash time, crash dumps if any, etc
On Thursday 07 December 2000 12:41, oneflower wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
>
> I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
> I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tc
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: a problem about install qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2 release
Hello:
I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/
Hello:
I met a problem when I installed qmail 1.03 on FreeBSD 4.2release.
I input ' csh -cf '/var/qmail/rc &', qmail runs well.
I add 'smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd' to inetd.conf.
It only open
Hello all.
Hope someone has an idea what is going on here, or what I can do to give more
information on the situation.
System: Sun ULTRA-10 running RedHat Linux 6.2 kernel 2.2.16-3, 512 RAM, 2 x 9 gig IDE
HDD
This conifg is repeated 2 times for the mail exchanger and backup exchanger
Hi everyone!
I'm running Exchange Server 5.5 Service Pack 3 and QMail 1.03. Exchange's Internet
Mail Connector sends all outgoing mail through qmail which is configured to accept
relaying from Exchange. All outgoing messages bounce back from qmail with the error
message below (ad
Quoted from [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> no problem with the first line, except that I don't know if /etc/tcp.smtp
> was supposed to exist or it just had to be created (in fact it didn't
> exist beforehand).
You write it yourself.
> The second line is another story. /usr/local/sbin/
I installed qmail, daemontools and ucspi-tcp from the OpenBSD ports.
Then went to the lwq.html and howto for configuration.
I connect through one isp, but usually send/receive mail through other
accounts on different isps.
After creating the supervise/ directories and files, I followed the
"Michail A.Baikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How to set this configuration:
>
>I have local user: alex
>
>And all mail (!UNDELIVERING!) to domain.ru send to alex
echo "&alex" >/var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default
-Dave
How to set this configuration:
I have local user: alex
And all mail (!UNDELIVERING!) to domain.ru send to alex
Please help me.
t;
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail 1.03
> OK, thanks, I'll take a look at it.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECT
go
with
> whatever instructions are in the ~st.johns/.qmail file, probably putting
it
> into the accounts $HOME/Maildir/
>
> MHP
> - Original Message -
> From: Bob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Matthew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, Septe
unts $HOME/Maildir/
MHP
- Original Message -
From: Bob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matthew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Qmail 1.03
> OK, correct me if I'm wrong. In the .qmail file that is in every user ho
"Matthew Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Qmail 1.03
> dot-qmail(5) is your friend
>
> MHP
>
> - Original Message -
> Fr
dot-qmail(5) is your friend
MHP
- Original Message -
From: Bob Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 11:51 AM
Subject: Qmail 1.03
> I have never had to do this before. Our new billing software does not work
> if we ha
I have never had to do this before. Our new billing software does not work
if we have "." dots in the user name.
I need to remove the dots in the software but have qmail deliver the un
doted mail for those few users to their doted Mail address.
How do I do this.
Thanks
Bob Ross
Thus said "Bob Ross" on Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:00:18 PDT:
> Qmail has been getting very slow at responding. I also noticed in the logs
> that it is handling a lot of email that can't be returned(spam.)
What do you mean by "slow at responding?" Do you mean that it takes a
long time for a message t
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Bob Ross wrote:
> Something I have not noticed in many years has started the last few weeks.
>
> Qmail has been getting very slow at responding. I also noticed in the logs
> that it is handling a lot of email that can't be returned(spam.)
>
> Is there a way to clear out the
s the task that takes long for authorizing. But I still have no
solution for that.
Stef
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:00 AM
Subject: Qmail 1.03
> Something I have not noticed
Something I have not noticed in many years has started the last few weeks.
Qmail has been getting very slow at responding. I also noticed in the logs
that it is handling a lot of email that can't be returned(spam.)
Is there a way to clear out the old mail if this is the cause.
Customers have be
Brian Estes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is your logging configuration for qmail on that box? If you're going
> > to the syslog, that could be your problem. syslog has been known to bring
> > even large boxes to their knees with a busy qmail server. Try
> > multilog or something inst
> has anyone experienced this or anything like this
not the same...
just qmail-smtpd crashed ones with the following message in the logs:
--- from /var/log/messages ---
Jul 31 05:42:59 joshua -- MARK --
Jul 31 05:52:52 joshua kernel: Oops:
Jul 31 05:52:52 joshua kernel: CPU:0
Jul 31 05:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Aug 2000, at 11:21, Brian Estes wrote:
> The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
> load on the server skyrokets to 300+
> server is NOT loggin anything, in fact the server is doing nothing
> (cron can not even run)
Can "top
Brian Estes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am having the following problem on my qmail server ...
>
> running the LATEST version of qmail 1.03
> Sun E-450 2CPU, 1G RAM
>
> The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
> load on the server skyrokets to
I am having the following problem on my qmail server ...
running the LATEST version of qmail 1.03
Sun E-450 2CPU, 1G RAM
The server hangs and is unresponseive to anything but pings
load on the server skyrokets to 300+
server is NOT loggin anything, in fact the server is doing nothing (cron
can
;
machines - this reduces the impact of this problem.
I think for the systems concerned, bare-LF mailers must be
pretty rare, but once a couple started appearing, it spelt trouble.
cheers,
Andrew.
--
From: Toens Bueker[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 July 2000 23:36
To: [EMAIL P
Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again,
> resulting in a potential loop."
>
> The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is
>
> 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
>
> which would trigger the above fault i
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:33:32PM +1000, Adrian Head wrote:
! The only thing I have changed was the following lines in the SPEC file
! to get around the FD_SET() problem with only 1024 descriptors in my
! kernel.
Rereading Adrian's message, I now see what's being said. Basically,
``ulimit -n'' w
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:33:32PM +1000, Adrian Head wrote:
! /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.99466: /tmp/qmail-root/usr/bin/make-owners: Permission
! denied
!
! What I don't understand is why the permission problem or the real
! function of make-owners.
Just a stab in the dark, but is it possible that your /
If this is Off Topic for this mailing list I apologise - please point me
in the right direction.
I have this little problem that has been bugging me for a few days with
the installation of Bruce Guenter's qmail-1.03+patches-14.src.rpm from
http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail+patches/
When buildin
there may still be
something that is 'broken' in Solaris 2.7. If I'm feeling brave, and
happen to be working with that system again, I'll try smtpstone-ing it...
cheers,
Andrew.
--
From: Toens Bueker[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 July 2000 23:45
To: [EMAIL P
John White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reassured I installed the patched version with all the
> > nice features (conf-spawn=2045, conf-split=521) -> Success
> > - no error.
>
> On the Solaris 7 platforms, do you
> make setup check after you change conf-spawn and
> conf-split?
I copied the so
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 09:35:36PM +0200, Toens Bueker wrote:
> Reassured I installed the patched version with all the
> nice features (conf-spawn=2045, conf-split=521) -> Success
> - no error.
On the Solaris 7 platforms, do you
make setup check
after you change conf-spawn and conf-split?
John
aybe I wasn't precise enough:
The error appears on the mentioned Solaris 7 machines with
plain unmodified qmail-1.03 and patched qmail-1.03 alike.
On the Solaris 2.6 machine both a plain unmodified qmail-1.03
and the same patched version I used on the other machines, did not
produce the error.
Ug. That is not the correct way of doing it.
Did you read the comments immediately preceeding the line
that you changed? It tells you the correct way to do this.
Is there anything else you'd like to tell us? It started off
as "qmail-1.03 on Solaris broken" when in fact it should be
&quo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A scan of the sources reveals that that error message is generated
> from the follow C code:
>
> if (chdir("queue") == -1) die(62);
>
> The reasons why that could fail are pretty limited in the qmail
> scenario.
>
> o The directory does not exist - installation e
A scan of the sources reveals that that error message is generated
from the follow C code:
if (chdir("queue") == -1) die(62);
The reasons why that could fail are pretty limited in the qmail
scenario.
o The directory does not exist - installation error?
o The file system is flaky - f
Hi *,
sorry for nagging you all with this one again, but I
really have to find out what is happening here.
An unmodified qmail-installation on this machine (and all
other Suns I could test)
SunOS namehere 5.7 Generic_106541-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine
breaks, when I try to relay
"Bob Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The questoin is I want to add the new domain righ now so that users will be
>able to collect mail sent to either domain to make the transiction easier.
>Do I just add the new domain in the same locations as the old domain under
>the /var/qmail/control files?
I'm going to try and ask this the best I can.
I already have Qmail with TCP running, and has been doing so for almost
three years. I'm getting ready to change domain names.
The questoin is I want to add the new domain righ now so that users will be
able to collect mail sent to either domain to m
Is there a qmail-ldap list? Has anybody successfully installed the
qmail-ldap patch? What type of scalability does it offer vs. vpopmail?
Any thoughts, insights, and theories will be appreciated.
Patrick
At 15:23 26.4.2000, Laura Donovan wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am currently testing out the QMAIL 1.03 SMTP antispam filter patch -
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/qmail-uce.html - and
>was wondering if anyone else has tried it or heard anything about it.
>Also,
Hello,
I am currently testing out the QMAIL 1.03 SMTP antispam filter patch -
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5799/qmail-uce.html - and
was wondering if anyone else has tried it or heard anything about it.
Also, the README says to run "patch
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
