On 2006-02-07, at 0214, Adam Ossenford wrote:
I was able to integrate your qmail-1.03-jms1.6c patch and the qmail
tap patch successfully.
did you do mine first and then qmailtap, or the other way around? did
the patch apply cleanly or were there any rejects which had to be
handled
did you do mine first and then qmailtap, or the other way around? did
the patch apply cleanly or were there any rejects which had to be
handled manually?
Actually, I had tried do install both patches one after the other and was
not able to ever get it to work. The two patches had a couple
On Monday 06 February 2006 19:22, John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-02-06, at 1620, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
i'm thinking about possibly including the qmailtap patch in my
combined
patch file. however, the biggest problem i've seen from people using
QUEUE_EXTRA is that they set up loops when they
On Saturday 04 February 2006 23:47, John Simpson wrote:
just a quick question. i'm maintaining the monster combined patch that
qmailrocks has adopted, and over the past few months i've been hammered
with questions about using QUEUE_EXTRA. apparently it works with older
versions of my combined
On 2006-02-06, at 1620, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
i'm thinking about possibly including the qmailtap patch in my
combined
patch file. however, the biggest problem i've seen from people using
QUEUE_EXTRA is that they set up loops when they try to send the
copies to
a remote address, and because
my answer to this question is usually i'm not going to add it to my
combined patch- if you can add it, more power to you but i figured
in the interest of fairness i would at least ask the inter7 guys
about it... the qmailtap web page lists this as one of the places to
discuss qmailtap, and i
just a quick question. i'm maintaining the monster combined patch that
qmailrocks has adopted, and over the past few months i've been hammered
with questions about using QUEUE_EXTRA. apparently it works with older
versions of my combined patch, but since i added the ext_todo patch (which
solves
