"Racer X" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, his real problem is that he continues to patronize an ISP who
doesn't provide him with adequate services. The ISP is not at fault
here.
ISP's don't grow on trees, at least outside of U.S. metropolitan
areas.
It's easy for you to say "use a
"Racer X" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Find another ISP.
Not an option.
If there were a real need for people to send outbound email directly to
their recipients, I'm sure we would offer such a service, and I'm sure
we'd have a contract restricting use appropriately. The simple fact is
that there
Mate Wierdl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, what if
UID 794 1794 2794 are taken?
If none of the UID/GID sets is available, the installation will fail.
Surely failed installation is acceptable, e.g., due to insufficient
disk space.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
prev. sysadmin in my company left for me a server of free mail that uses
sendmail ( Doh! )
The server has ~30k of users soo this is the right place for the qmail.
the 1[Q] is: is there any patches I should apply.
qmail works fine for me right out of the box. Others
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
judgement-callBasically, Dan has hacked off Donnie Barnes one too
many times. He has some technical issues, such as the difficulty of
moving a qmail queue from one machine to another, and that qmail
doesn't log enough to make configuration problems
"Peter C. Norton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 10:50:37AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
but what I've seen of Red Hat Linux doesn't overly impress
me.
ObCuriousity: Relative to what? IMO redhat, debian, freebsd, etc are
all pretty much neck-and-neck for installati
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The basic problem is that [Dan doesn't] trust Redhat.
Good for him! He'd be a fool to trust them. There's no basis for trust
between them.
If [he] trusted them, then [he] would give them the freedom to
distribute modified binaries.
If pigs had wings...
Bill Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Sill wrote:
Sendmail is *the* UNIX mailer. Everyone knows how to work it. It's
well documented, well proven, and hopefully most of the major bugs
have been found. We can tweak the source any way we see fit. Not
many (paying) customers
"Peter C. Norton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only part right. Those I've talked to at redhat say that they give
their work back to the community, and for free, because they believe
it's a valid business model, but also because it makes them feel good.
They were and are bucking the pointy-haired
Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you have to do is create it as root and make it readable by the mail
process for the user. They can read it, but they can't replace it.
Not true. If the user can write the directory, they can replace it.
-Dave
Joel Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Brad Shelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you have to do is create it as root and make it readable by the mail
process for the user. They can read it, but they can't replace it.
Not true. If the user can write
Joel Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has nothing to do with the suggestion though, that the
_home-directory_ of the user should be owned by root. Perhaps you thought
it was Maildir which should be owned by root?..
No, I thought the assertion was that making .qmail files owned by root
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Dave Sill wrote:
Let me try again. Licensing alone could conceivably explain why Red
Hat doesn't ship qmail. But it does't explain why they don't ship
exim, smail, zmailer, or any other OSS sendmail equivalent.
So, there has to be another reason
"Brian S. Craigie" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say for example I send an email with a 3Mb attachment to my home
address and CC: it to my family members, it's going to be sent, say,
5 times over a 33kBPS modem link, and take maybe 1 hour per message,
so 5 hours instead of 1 hour.
qmail is designed
This'll be my last word on the topic.
OK, stop cheering. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Question: *Why doesn't* Red Hat ship zmailer, exim, smail, or any
other OSS sendmail equivalent?
Because they are not as well tested don't scale and do not offer
"D. J. Bernstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill writes:
sendmail-send-it looks for a list of undeliverable recipients in the
combined stdout/stderr from sendmail.
That will catch most errors, with either sendmail or qmail, but it's not
reliable. Many current operati
Discussion of pipelining on the Postfix list got me thinking. I know
qmail supports pipelining on the SMTP server side because qmail-smtpd
says so in response to HELO/EHLO. But does it support it on the client
side? I don't see any reference to pipelining in qmail-remote.c.
-Dave
[I replied to Russ, but others might be interested in this, too. -Dave]
Russ Nelson wrote:
Has anyone coded MD5 (message digest 5) in djb-style C?
DJB has. Back in '93/'94 he wrote a package called "fingerprint" that
included it. Unfortunately, he seems to have orphaned it.
From the README:
"D. J. Bernstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The license demands that you stop using the IBM Secure Mailer upon IBM's
request. You are explicitly required to destroy every copy you possess
of the IBM Secure Mailer.
Jeeze! I must have been half asleep when I read the license. I
completely missed
Mark E Drummond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Hi.
I have a mailing list set up using the .qmail-listname feature. I have
email addresses listed one per line like I'm supposed to and it works
fine. My question is, can the lines of email addresses take any normal
SMTP form or does it have to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
How's your qmail configured? What does qmail-showctl say?
What kind of connectivity do you have?
Running a local nameserver?
with SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fetchmail passes mail over as simon.hampton@localhost and I can teach
users/assign to tackle simon.hampton and deliver it linux user sim, but why
cannot I set up a .qmail file in ~alias to do this?
For security reasons, qmail replaces "."'s with ":"'s in .qmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:59:18PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
20K/hour for PPRO200
40K/hour for PII350
Well, you can get 60k/hour using both. Frankly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to find a way of doing 100K/hour. Ideally with one machine. I
vaguely seems to recall that the author of qmail was claiming something
like 100K/hour performance?
I can't find anything like on the web page. The closest claims are:
Efficient: On a Pentium under
David Villeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as some messages are waiting to be "preprocessed" (see INTERNALS
for explanation), qmail does not achieve 255 simultaneous qmail-remote.
Besides, as you inject the messages into the queue, qmail-send spends a
huge amount of time cleaning up (via
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the advantages/disadvantages of cyclog over syslog?
Advantages: performance, automatic rotation, predetermined maximum
size, ability to filter for unusual messages using "usually", no
remote access and associated security problems, timestamps are more
precise.
Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mail reason that I can't switch to qmail is that I'm NOT
familiar with qmail in early days, so I chose sendmail.
You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
revert to sendmail easily.
I've read all the articles about the
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'qmail for outgoing' claim is correct. The 'zmailer for incoming'
claim is very ridiculous.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/08/msg01208.html
Samuel Dries-Daffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
revert to sendmail easily.
On our server (SGI Indy -- IRIX 6.5) this was mostly true, with one
exception-- BSD mail users.
We had
I'm replying to several messages here (see References), but I'm not
going to bother attributing each quote.
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail
Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone said that qmail is weaker if I send many 'RCPT TO:' in one SMTP
transactions than sendmail. Well, I don't know the inside story, but I
do worry about that statement.
Don't worry. There are very rare situations in which sendmail can be
faster
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Please give me an example of how to set it up so that a
remote site can open as many connections as it wants (which you think it
should be able to do) without monopolizing the system.
I don't care if a remote site uses all available SMTP connections if:
Greg Owen {gowen} [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Marlon Anthony Abao wrote:
could anyone give me their reasons why they switched to qmail
from sendmail or any other mail server? anything convincing enough
for most of you would most likely be convincing for most other ppl
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
...with sendmail, one process delivers to all
recipients, and only one connection is ever open to a remote
site. ...
Hmm very untrue in fact. Sendmail will under several circumstances
[none of which I will explain here but some
Peter Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a list that, when it goes out, pushes our mail server's
qmail-remote processes to its max, 180. At points, almost every single one
is "connecting" to juno.com, effectively disallowing any other mail from
getting through. juno.com, meanwhile, is timing
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would assume not go through the hassle of telling dixie why her alias
all of a sudden stopped working.
I assume you meant "as soon".
it would be nice if I could just render
it useless before the confusion begins I guess.
Did you read Sam's response?
On
Blaine Lefler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is my first message to the group. I was wondering if there is a
way to make qmail open a single qmail connection per domain not per
rcpt?
No.
-Dave
Doug McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Qmail's logs are much more
difficult to track than sendmail's where before everything was two lines or
three, it's five or six, and I'm not able to see things that could be
potential configuration problems with Qmail (at least not clearly!).
Grab
"Racer X" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so we can all see the huge number of patches that are listed on
www.qmail.org, and i'd be willing to bet that anyone who has used qmail for
more than a day or so has had to use at least one of those patches.
You'd lose. I've used qmail heavily for three years
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never argued that this didn't work, tried it, and it did. That wasn't
the question either. Its more of a control issue that it makes me nervous
a user can create addition email addresses for themselves.
Why didn't you just say "How can I disable extension
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with that theory is that, when someone complains to Dan,
he dismisses their concern as trivial and frivolous. Given the choice
between being insulted, and actually getting your problem solved by
installing a patch, which would you choose?
C:
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I'm still fumbling around trying to get a grip on this. I have to
feel insanely confortable before I move my userbase over to this new
server using qmail.
So you're a fascist neophobe. :-)
I can live with that. The main reasons I'm being pulled in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dave Sill writes:
No entries containing the string "delivery"? Sounds
they're still in the queue. What do qmail-qstat and qmail-qread say?
NOPE
just those three lines, on every attempt
qmail-qstat and qmail-qread only report a few 17 Apr mails, stu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I wondered why qmail is not compliant to fsstnd?
Because qmail runs on many platforms, not just Linux, and because Dan
does things His Way. However, His Way, in this case, is flexible
enough to be made nearly fsstnd compliant.
All the config files
should reside at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what software to use to have a qmail mailing list indexed
online in html format ?
I use MHonArc, http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/mhonarc.html, to
convert to HTML, and OpenText (commercial) for the index and search
engine.
-Dave
"Durham, Kenneth J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ive been trying to setup my mail server to send and recieve mail. I set a
mail message out to my self from pine to another server outside of my
network. this is a snip of the log sending it out.
OK, you sent a message to two remote systems, or one
"Durham, Kenneth J" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 have to let you know Im very new at
this. So any help you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is the filetree organized that much different on different Unices?
Yep.
The ~/.qmail files I'd suggest to put into ~/etc/qmail, rather than
hiding them among the lots of various other `dotfiles' that you
encounter in users' homes.
I can't agree with you there.
Eric Shafto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ, your criticism is valid, but not helpful. It would have taken
less effort for you to tell Kyle what info he should be providing. If
people doesn't know how to solve the problem themselves, they may well
not know what information is important or
"Guenthner, Ralf DIRZ 612" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been using qmail for a year now with no problems. But now the HD of
the Linux system is filling up and by means of find I found a 91 MB (!)
file in the directory /var/qmail/queue/mess/46458.
What the hell is this file and how can I
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can procmail be used with an assign db?
Each entry in assign points to a directory where qmail looks for
.qmail files. Put the "| procmail" line in the appropriate file.
-Dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading the manpages for qmail and either I've missed something
simple or done something stupid, I can'tget the vacation program to work.
my .qmail file is:
./Maildir/
|/usr/local/bin/vacation multics
messages keep getting delivered over and over again and
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail
ln -s /usr/bin /var/qmail/bin, I suppose? :)
Same thing since /var/qmail is a directory. I'm lazy, so the shorter
one appeals to me.
-Dave
"Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why I prefer to install qmail from the directions in
INSTALL. Sure, the rpm's make it easier to *install*, but, IMHO, they
make it harder to *maintain* since you don't know exactly what they
did.
Yes you do.
rpm -q -l -vv $PACKAGE
That only tells you
"Ferri Andy Ch." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I posted this DSN issue last week, and not a single response to
it. Is there any body care about this feature?
Apparently not. There aren't any MUA's that I'm aware of that do
anything special with DSN's. Dan considered DSN too cumbersome, so he
created
Pike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail.
It is. It's just not a 100% compatible sendmail replacement. It
performs the same high-level functions, but almost all of the details
differ.
They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some minor differences'
"Jay D. Dyson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, either I'm seriously underestimating my skill set or a lot
of other people are seriously overestimating the skill set necessary to
install Qmail without inflicting self-injury.
Which is it? I consider myself competent, but by no means
"Henrik Holmberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My qmailanalog programs don't work :(
They just hang and do nothing at all, what can be wrong??
Lots of things, but I'm not going to guess.
-Dave
Van Liedekerke Franky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just wandering when/if the next version is comming out? I see lots of
patches and fixes that could be bundled together for a new qmail: ldap, uce,
oversize dns, and many more. I always see "qmail 2" mentioned in the mailing
list...
If there was a
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to do [EMAIL PROTECTED] user. This was pretty painless in
sendmail.
Couldn't be much easier in qmail:
echo vhost.com:user /var/qmail/control/virtualdomains
echo vhost.com /var/qmail/control/rcpthosts
I also tried the virtualhosts file,
Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:08:01PM -, Russell Nelson wrote:
Dave Sill writes:
People are overestimating the skill set necessary to install qmail
without self-injury, which, IMHO, is:
1. Ability to read
2. Ability to think
3
"Jeff Lush" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been successfully using qmail for 2 weeks thanks to the great people
and their advice on this list. My latest crusade is to change the line in my
email headers that currently state that "qmail was invoked by uid ###" to
"qmail was invoked by network".
Doug McClure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, what I am trying to do is to have normal delivery (i.e,,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], the virtual domain, would get delivered to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], our primary domain, for all users) excepting specific
individuals whom [EMAIL PROTECTED] must get forwarded to
Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel Griffiths wrote:
Did you change your user's ~/.qmail file
echo ./Maildir/ ~/.qmail
Still creating a 'Mailbox' even after I deleted it when test mail arrives.
Must have missed something in the config...but what ?
Beats me. Do "ls -l ~/.qmail; cat
Yessure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing a web mail system based on qmail. For the security
reason,i am using users/assign(and hash table users/cdb) instead of
system /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. It works fine. But the problem
is, if there is 10 or more users can it works fine
Marlon Anthony Abao [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
am running qmail as follows :
/bin/csh -cf '/usr/local/bin/supervise /var/run/qmail /var/qmail/rc '
but why csh? why not use the default shell (in my case, bash)?
just wondering...
Bash will work, too. Dan recommends csh
"Tom Furie" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, so I can set qmail to accept and queue mail for 'user@domain'.
Good for you. :-)
How do I allow mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to be captured by the same
queue?
What do you mean by "the same queue"? There's only one queue per qmail
installation. Can't
Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Connected to 207.69.200.126 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550-MindSpring mail servers are unable to deliver this
e-mail.
550-Please contact your Internet Service Provider to find out how
550-to send e-mail using the proper SMTP
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use maildirs, but I don't see what you are refering to on the man page.
How about:
Each file in new is a newly delivered mail message.
And:
Files in cur are just like files in new. The big difference is
that files in cur are no longer new
Andy Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that using pine and mbox2maildir, the messages never hit the
current directory and still maintain a read or unread flag.
Sounds like mbox2maildir is broken, then. Pine uses the Status header
field, as Sam said, in the mbox format mailbox. mbox2maildir
I've got enough of my qmail guide complete that it's worth reviewing:
http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html
It's still less than half done, though, so don't bother telling me
that section X.Y is empty. :-)
Let me if like it, hate it, or don't care either way. If you think it
needs
Chris Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail uses DNS only--it won't look at /etc/hosts.
Change your control/smtproutes file to:
:10.1.1.1
Make that:
:[10.1.1.1]
-Dave
Anyone have a GIF or JPG of Dan? I'd like to have a face to place with
the name.
-Dave
Jari Tenhunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone succesfully configured selective relay with tcp_wrappers ??
Yes, but it's not supported. One problem is that tcp_wrappers has to
be built with a certain non-default option for it to work.
Or do I have to install tcpserver ??
That *will* work.
"DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of that ???
I don't believe it.
yep, it is definite, QMAIL violates RFC 2197, and should *NOT* claim
support for PIPELINING.
MAIL From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BODY=8BITMIME
RCPT To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 ok
250 ok
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I sort of asked this question before, but I'm going to try again, this
time with a little more info.
Good idea. :-)
I try to use fetchmail to download mail from another server. While running
fetchmail, it dies saying "fetchmail: can't even send to user!" (user
olli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I need to repack immediately send mail I should killall -ALRM
qmail-send. I do this then I got dialup user that wish to get mail via
smtp. But what about big ISPs that have many dialup clients a big
spool?
You should use AutoTURN from the serialmail package.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the time being, my system only has a dialup connection, so all that's
in my rcpthosts and locals is localhost.localdomain.
You should add "the-i.net" to rcphosts and put
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]:jason" in virtualdomains. Also, create a
~jason/.qmail-jasonf or
#!/bin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1998 Software in the Public Interest http://www.debian.org/
# Written by Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Distributed under the GNU GPL
# $Id: qmail-procmail,v 1.2 1998/03/24 19:31:27 phil Exp $
# modified by Dave Sill
/var/qmail/bin/pr
"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
"Ralf Guenthner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
System: SUSE Linux, qmail 1.03
Is it possible to set up qmail in such a fashion that it routes
messages for certain recipients, eg. to my address [EMAIL PROTECTED],
not to our normal mail server inside the LAN -whose IP address is in
smtproutes- but
Jhirley Fonte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tcpserver running from /var/qmail/rc using the following
command line on one line,
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -x/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -v -u 504 -g 503 0 smtp
/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 21 | /var/qmail/bin/splogger smtpd 3
But It keeps
"Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um... so is the trigger a new file has been created
Yes.
or no more input is
being put into the file? Each one of those begs a question... the first
is, do you want to "tail" or "cat" each and every new file that is
generated
Yes. Cyclog keeps a
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you describe "crash" in more detail?
Are you using tcpserver or inetd?
Dollars to doughnuts he's using inetd and "crash" means connections to
port 25 are refused.
Dan, is it time to declare inetd unsupported, yet?
-Dave
"Christopher Porreca" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas as to what might be happening on my mail server?
What do your logs say? Trace a single delivery in the logs, and see
where the delay is occuring. Run some qmailanalog stats on the
logs. What are your concurrencylocal
Ë÷Ò×µç×Ó¿¯Îï [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have apache 1.3.6? There is a benchmark program 'ab',and you can run
it:(src/support/ab)
./ab -c 800 yourhost:25/abc.htm
then qmail will crash(btw,yourhost:80 SOMETIME can cause apache crash ,but qmail
ALWAYS... :( so I dont't think it is
"Praniti Lakhwara" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a question regarding forwarding. I ahve a mailing address set
up which is supposed to forward to 230 accounts. but when I ad dthe
230 email addresses in its forward to box...and submit it comes back
and says
You've got too many unidentified
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I'm wanting to set up qmail so that it's rather unfriendly to people
who telnet straight into it. I want to completely turn off help so that it
doesn't display any version info etc., as well as turning off echo so they
can't see what they're typing. How do I go
"Robin Bowes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 small, and I don't
have a URL, so I've
Christian Wiese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q: Are the qmail RPMs good, or should I use the "normal" way (compile
the qmail sources) to setup my qmail server ???
See URL:http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#Installation Issues.
-Dave
I have serious problems with autoturn from the serialmail package.
You might want to try the serialmail mailing list.
-Dave
"Chris Garrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where do I dig up info on daemontools? I can't find any links on either
www.qmail.org or djb's qmail page.
See http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~dsill/lwq.html#daemontools
-Dave
Eike Kiltz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
You might want to try the serialmail mailing list.
Yes I did so...
You didn't say that.
... but nobody seemed to care :(
That happens. Sometimes it's because nobody cares. It can also mean
nobody understands
Eike Kiltz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whenever the client involves the smtp-delivery of his autoturn-queue with
the TURN signal the transfer of the mail hangs at a special position of
the mail just right after the "mime header" of the secound attchmnt, see
below. The original mail with all headers
"Scott D. Yelich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, taildir still doesn't "work" ... although it mostly compiles
and stuff now.
What's the next step?
!block irony
Demand a refund! Lobby your congressman to approve the Software
Portability Act, which carries a mandatory life sentence for any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With VERP, if you receive a bounce, then it will be addressed in such
a way as to completely specify what bounced. Period. Handling that
automatically is certainly no trick.
Well, actually, sometimes gateways send bounces
Tasos Kotsikonas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not a subscriber of this list so if you have any relevant comments
please copy me too. Our company is looking around for qmail
replacements that do DSNs, after having sent a couple of emails
to Dan and received no replies on this issue.
Dan's
"Sam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you have mailing lists that number in millions, you will usually have
thousands of messages going to the same [domain].
Using VERPs will require a thousand times as much bandwidth. Each
individual message will have to be transmitted separately, plus each
Tasos Kotsikonas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With so much volume of email going out we need to cut down on the
number of bounces. As we expect megabytes of bounces each day coming
back from each such list, we need to keep our lists as clean as
possible. Nothing else other than DSNs will allow us
1 - 100 of 1816 matches
Mail list logo
