' that are for the
virtual domains and stores them for POP3 or IMAP retrieval.
'mx.ourdomain' is also the SMTP box for sending messages out to the
Internet.
--
Michael T. Babcock
.
--
_/~-=##=-~\_
-=+0+=- Michael T. Babcock -=+0+=-
~\_-=##=-_/~
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/ ICQ: 4835018
with tails) and does not change anything to the POP3 nor SMTP
protocols.
--
_/~-=##=-~\_
-=+0+=- Michael T. Babcock -=+0+=-
~\_-=##=-_/~
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/ ICQ: 4835018
of information.
--
_/~-=##=-~\_
-=+0+=- Michael T. Babcock -=+0+=-
~\_-=##=-_/~
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/ ICQ: 4835018
Does anyone have a quick script to check if a given tcprules file is
newer than the .cdb version and generate the new one if it is? I'm not
a big shell-script person.
In other words, I'll write it in C if I have to ...
--
_/~-=##=-~\_
-=+0+=- Michael T. Babcock
I need to quit answering myself ...
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/linux/newer-0.1.tar.gz
Returns 1 if first file is newer, 2 if second is newer, 0 if neither is.
(I don't know if anyone else wanted this, but ...)
"Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
Does anyone have a quick scrip
?
Or are there any text based (pine-like) MUA's that can grab the mail via
POP3?
Or how about any docs on vpopmail
--
_/~-=##=-~\_
-=+0+=- Michael T. Babcock -=+0+=-
~\_-=##=-_/~
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/ ICQ: 4835018
Are there any downsides to using the Netscape Messenger progress patch?
In other words, does it violate the standards in such a way as to
potentially break any other clients?
Reminder of what patch does:
replaces "okay();" in qmail-pop3d.c with
puts("+OK ");
Nothing wrong with 100% CPU usage. It just means that the kernel was able to
soak the CPU with work ... which is good. Maxing out your performance on a RAM
disk at 75% CPU usage means your system has a problem somewhere.
As for performance though, I'd be interested in seeing the actual numbers
If you use a caching nameserver, frequent domains will automatically be
cached for a given amount of time. If you read the entire website for the
RBL (or other related lists) you'll find that they have subscription options
... basically you'd set yourself up as a slave server that downloads the
Is UTIME necessary in a mail queue? If a logging filesystem were mounted on a
separate disk (or network array, etc.) specifically for the mail queue,
shouldn't it be mounted without UTIME?
Bruce Guenter wrote:
The only way to get truely zero seek performance is to use a
log-structured file
Does anyone know if this behaviour persists in Mozilla?
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org
Russell Nelson wrote:
Petr Novotny writes:
Well, yeah. "+OK" field is mandatory, the rest is optional and can
be anything. Netscape is brain-dead to parse the comment and try
to make anything of it.
Is awk perhaps using an output format that uses scientific notation when the
number (mbytes) is too large? Should you change "print mbytes" to "printf
("%d", mbytes)" ???
Moragues Ramón, Antonio wrote:
Hi,
I run a qmail server and I want know the total number of bytes sent
trought it, y
these off may or may not reduce
performance penalties of fsync()'s. Might be an issue for the ReiserFS or EXT3
people to think about.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 01:25:36PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Is UTIME necessary in a mail queue? If a logging filesystem were
Yes, sorry ... utime.
But as I said in the other message ... it would be nice.
Bruce Guenter wrote:
You cannot mount without mtime (I misspelt it -- utime is the syscall)
AFAIK. You can mount without atime (access time). mtime is changed
every time the file is modified. ctime is changed
I've got a problem:
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.174990 tcpserver: status: 1/50
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.175379 tcpserver: warning: dropping
connection, unable to fork: temporary failure
Jul 21 09:20:10 gw2 smtpd: 964185610.175566 tcpserver: status: 0/50
I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
(if this is true).
I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
msg1 - mx1 (in progress)
msg2 - mx2 (start another process)
msg3 - mx1 (queue and send on same connection as #1 when #1 is
The issue of bandwidth management is the #1 issue for higher level ISPs
right now. Obviously you don't read the trade magazines or talk to those
persons.
The move to lower bandwidth consumption of websites in general has picked up
speed as well. Many many sites and organisations are taking a
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 10:30:41AM -0400, Mark Mentovai wrote:
That's very easy on a host-by-host basis, and I use it for certain setups.
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in question," an MTA
should make efficient use of a limited number of SMTP
Don't get me wrong. I like Qmail for the most part. I just think there's
room for improvement. And room for less attitude ... hint.
Petr Novotny wrote:
The problem is that there shouldn't be any "domain in
question," an MTA should make efficient use of a limited number of
SMTP sessions
I agree.
But I think we're both just labelled as radicals for wanting better than the
best there is.
Microsoft ended up with good software at some point in time ... best of its
class even ... then stopped making it better.
Hint ;-).
Mark Mentovai wrote:
I use qmail because it meets most of
and the 25
or 30 copies all show up in parallel to the remote site.
PS, 2 months ago.
Petr Novotny wrote:
On 21 Jul 00, at 11:17, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
While you ponder the answer to those questions, qmail will have
delivered the mail.
Or crashed a mailserver.
Please stop
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't
have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or
not, so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while
I'd love to. Read my previous message.
If I see some discussion about it, and enough people are actually interested, I
may end up investing enough time to get this off the ground. I may not. I have
four other pieces of software to write (from scratch) over the next week.
John White wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really going to re-enter this recurring fray, but it is
amusing to note that web browsers open multiple connections at once
in an effort to speed up their perceived performance. I don't see
much push to stop that sort of greedy behaviour.
I do. HTTP 1.1 was
I would be really interested in seeing those numbers in the FAQ somewhere ...
Charles Cazabon wrote:
A few people have done the math; MTAs which aggregate recipients to save
bandwidth tend to have more overhead network bandwith (additional MX lookups,
etc), and the savings is not as great as
Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20
simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
(if this is true).
I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
This is very hard to do, and expensive. And it would slow down mail
delivery, both
I think a large number of people on this list need to spend more time actually
listening to and considering people's concerns than simply saying 'thats not
how we do things here'. Anyone else read DJB's discussions about being on the
nameserver mailing list? I'm not being moderated out (I
3) Opening M connections (where M N) and sending the messages down those M
pipes without marking the message as having gone through a "could not connect to
mail server" situation but queuing it for that MX instead.
??
Dave Sill wrote:
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not? You
If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and
you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that
defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a
particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect
, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
And DJB has already proposed other protocol solutions that don't handle this
issue either. That said, your comment is moot. SMTP has lots of problems, why
_not_ solve them?
This isn't a problem with SMTP -- It's a problem with MTA's that don't handle
lots of incoming
Yes, I've seen this too. I can almost guarantee that the user on the
remote server has exceeded their storage allocation. They've probably
received a message from the server telling them they should delete some
mail.
Incidentally, in RFC 821, that is the exact text for error 552. Hotmail
et.
You might just be running into chown user.group problems ... try escaping the
'.' or wrapping the username in quotes. That failing, does al.koch have an
entry in /etc/passwd? Your final question makes me believe that none of your
users are in /etc/passwd at all. You might want to convert to
Wouldn't you just rotate the mailservers? Go from A to B to C instead of
picking one randomly? I don't see how random distribution is going to be less
balanced than a simple round-robin, and generating random numbers tends to take
more computation than incrementing a variable.
"Austad, Jay"
"John van V." wrote:
I am building a site to toot the horn of public domain products that have
industrial strength.
I'm not aware of Qmail being public domain ... I see a public domain statement in
sgetopt and subgetopt ... but that is all. (please correct me if I'm wrong --
and the
Export to CSV format, then you can import them into MySQL with very
little difficulty (LOAD DATA ... see MySQL manual). If you're not using
MySQL authentication, sorry.
"Javier Vino R." wrote:
I have a big table in MS exel with de login and pass, How can I do to
import from VPOPMAIL all the
]
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:29:08 -0400
From: (Michael T Babcock) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: (Charles Cazabon) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: orbs.org accuses qmail of mailbomb relaying!
I'd have to agree. I'm using ORBS ... but it was a lot of internal arguing (my
head :-)
At some point I need to rewrite the ORBS interface software to both bounce the
messages and deliver them to a temporary store where I can review them.
Russell Nelson wrote:
Alan is the south end of a
True, but its quite valid to round-robin several servers to keep any one from ever
getting a high load in the first place. eg. the way load-balancing HTTP usually
works.
Russell Nelson wrote:
Austad, Jay writes:
Instead of having qmqpc picking the first available server, I would like it
I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification on
Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host
refuses the connection because it has too many incoming sessions open.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
Also, the other hosts will
Well written.
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
Hmm...RSET needs one roundtrip (C: RSET, S: OK). A new SMTP connection
needs 3 roundtrips: 1. C:TCP(SYN), S:TCP(SYN+ACK), 2. C:TCP(ACK), S:server
hello, 3. C:HELO, S:OK. Moreover a typical TCP implementation will open
every new connection with most
I think unsubscribing them is probably unnecessary, but blocking their 'bounce'
messages at
the list server would probably be smart.
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into
badmailfrom--they are kind enough to send their bounces with a
non-null
Scratch previous comment -- bounces are going to individual senders, not to list
(because
headers are not rewritten, which is a good thing, I suppose). I'll add a filter
myself for
my host.
"Aaron L. Meehan" wrote:
My mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced, so I malleted them into
For your #1: this would be similar to the Linux kernel approach to DMA on hard
drives ... enable by default, except on those drives we have in database of broken
drives.
As for #2 and #3: this adds overhead, of course, but could inherently reduce
overhead down the road, as long as the algorithm
Considering the number of useful patches that aren't part of the qmail
distribution that the average qmail admin seems to be using, I disagree.
Russ Allbery wrote:
If you really want to have separate queues and streaming of mail through a
single connection per peer rather than qmail's
for Qmail, I don't really
care.
Example: I use vpopmail to replace the usual pop authentication, for
instance. Do I think it should be part of the Qmail distribution? No, I
think it works better on its own.
Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael T Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Considering
Joe Kelsey wrote:
If a major point of
Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this
_must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating
standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them
headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose
I must have mistakenly added the message to the list. As my own comment stated,
I didn't mean to subject the list to our discussion.
I wrote:
That said, I'm leaving this off the list because I don't like noise,
so I'm not going to subject others to it.
Joe Kelsey wrote:
You don't bother
Score:
Apology for indirection: 1
Asanine comments: 1
Thanks everyone. I think this discussion has been very helpful to the Qmail
cause ... really.
Adam McKenna wrote:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 12:37:55AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Probably our responses are by now somewhat cryptic,
This is what I've asked for too -- and been given "do it yourself".
Best of luck.
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail.
And I have never seen numbers,
The 'problem' as it relates to RFCs, not to Qmail's implementation, is probably
the original question.
Dave Sill wrote:
"James Blondin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question I have is, and
excuse my ignorance if it's something silly: why not just accept the bare
linefeeds? From what I can
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break void main(), I
will
happily advise everyone to use a different compiler" engenders any trust in
someone's ability to write C code.
Qmail is well written, sure. But void main() is and always has been wrong on 99%
of platforms and
Russell Nelson wrote:
Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
Philipp Steinkrüger wrote:
Here is definitely an error - if you use vpopmail you cannot use the
checkpassword provided by DJB.
I found this in the qmail-FAQ, Question 5.3: how do i set up qmail-pop3d.
So there is a problem with my startup script ?
Just a poor assumption -- qmail-pop3d
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is and/or where the license
is embedded in C source files ...
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Dan's comment was that 'void main()' was done because 'int main()'
caused compiler warnings. If so, int main() should now prevail because
void main() causes the warnings.
Dave Sill wrote:
I don't see how "If there is ever a compiler dumb enough to break
void main(), I will happily advise
Well said, considering how often DJB waxes eloquent about non-standards
compliant and/or broken software.
Paul Jarc wrote:
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theoretically, "void main" is wrong. In practice, it works just
fine. Personally, I could not care less.
Theoretically, BIND's
I was hoping for an admission of guilt rather than a fight.
Petr Novotny wrote:
However, what do you expect, Michael? qmail-1.04 which would
only "fix" void main()?
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do. That said, I have still seen nothing about the
licensing of his software besides that he doesn't care about anything
that isn't implicitly illegal.
That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty
The question is: does DJB prefer that one modify (should they wish to) 55% of
the source code (say) and make this mod available as a patch, or simply rename
it to "rmail" (or whatever) and mention that it is derived from Qmail,
available at ... blah ...
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
I understand
DJB mentions on his 'future of qmail' page that a way to encode that a
host supports QMTP into its MX data is in the works. What method for
doing so is proposed?
will be
_magic.s.* I can receive mail by SMTP
_magic.q.* I can receive mail by QMTP
_magic.qs.* I can receive mail by QMTP or SMTP
with the possibility of future extensions such as
_magic.abcdqrsz.*
-X-
James Raftery wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote
I was wondering if it wouldn't be smart to use an extension to EHLO as a
way to detect QMTP availability on an MX. I decided to check and 'QMTP'
'EHLO' only appear together 4 times. Chuck Foster seems to be the
first to have asked whether it wouldn't be smart to add a "250 QMTP"
(later
more comatibility and
standards potential than the MX magic, especially when DJB mentionned not using
the MX magic preference values.
Russell Nelson wrote:
Michael T. Babcock writes:
(stuff)
I think that's a silly idea. Better to pick a "magic" MX preference,
-x-
A package is the concatenation of three strings:
first, an encoded 8-bit mail message;
second, an encoded envelope sender address;
third, an encoded series of encoded envelope recipient addresses.
-x-
The encoded envelope sender address isn't expanded on beyond the examples
To make this a little more QMTP compatible, and to agree with some of Peter
Norton's comments from late 1998, the sending MTA could also immediately
'transfer' the request to the QMTP by opening a new connection on the QMTP
port when it 'saw' the QMTP response from the foreign SMTP MTA. It would
I would like to offer an option similar to pobox.com's [spam: 84%]
"Subject:" munging for incoming messages from RBL or RSS listed sites.
Instead of actually bouncing the message as RBLSMTPD does, allow the
message but add [spam - rbl] or [spam - rss] or the like to the Subject:
field of the
Has anyone made an auto-responder to work with ezmlm (or others??) that
would reply to messages containing such "remove" messages to the list
and ask the sender if they wished to unsubscribe (with the proper
instructions)??
Guy Rosinbaum wrote:
REMOVEremove
Replies are in private ... anyone actually interested may ask for ensuing
discussion :-).
Markus Stumpf wrote:
This may get somewhat off topic ...
Agreed: PGP (et. al.) is definately the answer, not server-to-server
encryption. However, properly authenticated DNS (or an evolution
thereof) and resulting authenticated (S/Q)MTP sessions would be a leap
forward as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with your solution is that server
And unfortunately, zero-effort security is, with current technology, an oxymoron.
Swipe-card key systems that do the authentication would be low-effort. Retina
scanning cameras built into your monitor to do authentication would be low effort
as well. Until then, people have to decide if its
Potentially long, off-topic message: (follow-ups and/or flames probably best
kept private :)
"Ihnen, David" wrote:
Would you consider PGP more than a low-effort? It would be zero effort if
we weren't concerned about the privacy of our own secret keys, thus keeping
them encrypted behind
True -- but that would require the countries the software manufacturers do business
in to relax their export regs. and allow for open encryption hooks in their tools.
Dave Sill wrote:
It's not even this complicated with 6.5. You click on the window whose text
you want to encrypt, click on
Are you asking more for something like:
2000/07/31 06:02:10.42 (GMT+05)
This has always been the date format I've prefered ... its sortable (as the year
comes first -- although its quite narrow-minded of me to not allow for 5 digit
dates), its human-readable, and quite parsable. The decimal
That's more of what the RBL is for -- if you want to take that step. The RBL
is supposed to be a good list of sites that are producing spam, not that are
necessarily open relays at all.
"Hubbard, David" wrote:
Thanks for responding Chris. I am currently using the MAPS
relays.mail-abuse.org
Actually, no. The problem is that his E-mail client (Outlook Express) has
the option of sending BOTH plain and html versions of the message and is
sending them encoded as seperate MIME segments. Netscape Messenger also
supports this, but IMHO, its an incorrect reading of how MIME should be
The multiple UIDs provide a few failsafes, if nothing else, whereby one
broken / buggy / replaced binary can't do damage to files it doesn't own.
DJB has comments about this in the readmes, if I'm not mistaken.
- Original Message -
From: "Ronny Haryanto" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Re-read my point: its unnecessary. I didn't say it wouldn't work. I said
the CPU use of doing it this way was unnecessary over a simpler round-robin
approach (After picking an initial random server).
Note: I think using an array of pointers to server addresses would allow you
to do your
My pseudo code was supposed to infer that one would re-select (randomly, if
you wish) a server at a certain % of the time, based on how many times it
had been polled and turned out to be down. Simply replace my first
(increment, go to #2) with (go to #1).
- Original Message -
From:
, find messages older than 3 months and
1) (maybe) move to different folder with (3 month ago's) date attached
2) compress messages
I prefer something with the moving of the files as listing the contents
of the folder becomes much faster.
--
Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895)
http
I beg you to cite the place where this list abides by these "Age-old
standards".
I've cited some standards about mailing lists to people before -- but
usually along the lines of "don't quote 100 lines and give only 1 of your
own" or "don't use 10 line signatures". I don't complain about whether
ombination of Stoned or
Monkey with a few other oldies. These are all caught by modern anti virus
software and thus it _should_ be installed on machines. McAfee VirusScan
for workstations is only $15 (cost).
I don't classify that as snake-oil
--
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed
What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an
unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list server logic.
To justify my opinion; how could this reduce Internet traffic unless the
mailing list server chose E-mails _purposely_ (not just "20 or so") for a
A slightly different version of the question: how would one go about
filtering for Mailing List (etc.) and adding [qmail] to the subject line on
one's own mail?
- Original Message -
From: "Raul Beltran" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi, is there a possibility to automatically concatenate a string
I'm using it too -- but everything seemed fine with the patch so ...
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Rust" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Odd that this issue has been so quiet. Are there really so few people
using rblsmtpd?
dream ;-)
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Long" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 8/10/00 2:31 PM, Michael T. Babcock at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you're describing, if it is indeed happening, sounds more like an
unintentional result of open relays and strange mailing list se
Actually, no. The output from one is automatically sent to the input of the
next as they execute each other. The "\"'s are to allow the commands to be
on multiple lines.
- Original Message -
* Robert Sander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [11 Aug 2000 04:07]:
It seems to me that rblsmtpd can
And those on each side still disagree with each other.
The mailing list archives are, of course, full of this discussion and should
be consulted so that you can draw your own conclusions. Unless you disagree
with ORBS, stating your opinions here is probably hazardous.
- Original Message
The most-frequently used way to do this is with LDAP or vpopmail (both
well-used, "non-standard" qmail modifications).
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello friend... I am from Peru
I need change of Sendmail to Qmail agent MTA, but
I would like use MYSQL as database of
The current algorithm is probably fine for most users, but what about
configuring the initial frequency? I can see some people being interested
in trying again in 5 or 30 seconds, and others wanting to wait a few hours.
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What is the correct way to configure a secondary MX machine (qmail using
qmqp) so that the messages are sent with the standard exponential backoff
until '24 hours', and then every day for two weeks?
I've been asked to secondary a machine that is down sometimes for extended
periods of time (they
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at
11:32:00 -0700
I can't see much harm in being able to define the queuelifetime on
an individual submission - perhaps limited to between 0 and some
- Original Message -
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 17 August 2000 at
13:30:37 -0400
What is the correct way to configure a secondary MX machine (qmail
using
qmqp) so that the messages are sent with th
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Cazabon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I send an email to mother saying "I'll be home for lunch" I'd like to
tell my
MTA to drop/bounce the mail after that event has occurred.
One frequently-proposed (and possibly implemented) solution for such
- Original Message -
From: "Mate Wierdl" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:55:53AM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:08:28AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
That would not allow for the rapid changes necessary in a blackhole
list. Imagine you are an
I'm not Dan, but this is slightly less mathematical than it sounds. The
main point (if I understand DJB here) is:
Its only an hour late? Another 10 minutes will hurt about "this much".
Its a day late? Another hour will probably also hurt about "this much".
Its a week late? Another (day?)
). That was the jist of my original coment.
- Original Message -
From: "Mate Wierdl" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:34:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
The best approach to this is to have rblsmtpd use A records, as it
should
have from the beginning (t
- Original Message -
From: "Brett Randall" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
simply change an IP address on our port forwarding machine and its done -
no
external DNS and TTL hell to live through... You COULD alternately try
ipmasqadm with ipchains but I haven't had any luck with port forwarding
Also double-check with the appropriate patch author (especially if its a
larger patch, like LDAP) to see which configurations he/she has tested it
with.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Sill" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would:
1) Select only patches that I have a proven or mandated need for.
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
