I'm working on adding security features and compatability to my server,
which is currently running vpopmail 5.4.17. At the moment, everything is
working fine, but there are many features my system doesn't support. My
end goal is to support virtually any combination of server options in
Outlook
On Friday 22 February 2008 06:00:15 pm Nick Bright wrote:
I'm working on adding security features and compatability to my server,
which is currently running vpopmail 5.4.17. At the moment, everything is
working fine, but there are many features my system doesn't support. My
end goal is to
Hi,
Is it possible for the next/future release to include the ability of
adding multiple aliases in one hit goverened by repeated -i options?
eg:
valias -i [EMAIL PROTECTED] -i [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
where currently, only the last -i reference is the only alias
Hi,
Is it possible to have vmoduser modified so that changing a password
with a new -$option changes both encrypted and clear text passwords in
one run?
Sort of like: ./vmoduser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -P test
would change the password for [EMAIL PROTECTED] to test in both clear
text format
On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Quey wrote:
Is it possible to have vmoduser modified so that changing a
password with a new -$option changes both encrypted and clear
text passwords in one run?
It already does that. When you set the clear password, it also
updates the encrypted password.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Collins wrote:
I can't think of a time when you'd use the option to set the encrypted
password directly, but it's there in case someone needs it...
We've used it during conversions from other MTAs. It can be quite handy :)
- --
/*
Matt
Hi Tom,
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 20, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Quey wrote:
Is it possible to have vmoduser modified so that changing a password
with a new -$option changes both encrypted and clear text passwords
in one run?
It already does that. When you set the clear password, it also
I'm new to the vpopmail list, but not to vpopmail, I've had numerous
requests for a way to enforce password management with vpopmail managed
domains.
The reason for my post is the fact that vpopmail doesn't currently offer
a way to do this automatically, but I think there is a way to make it
. This feature should be domainbased and
customizable via a controlfile like tcp.smtp or simcontrol.
Is there any idea where to put these code best?
Regards
Christoph
/Maildir/new but to
$DOMAIN/$USER/Maildir/.Spam/new. This feature should be domainbased and
customizable via a controlfile like tcp.smtp or simcontrol.
As someone has already replied, maildrop can do this for you.
This sort of code does not belong in vdelivermail.
R.
--
http://robinbowes.com
Hi Robin,
Zitat von Robin Bowes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As someone has already replied, maildrop can do this for you.
This sort of code does not belong in vdelivermail.
Yeah,
that mail was too late. I've seen it a few minutes after my last mail
:D. Some other question: Why maildrop doesn't
vpopmail.vchkpw
./Maildir/.SPAM`
}
to ./Maildir/.SPAM/
}
to ./Maildir/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:22 AM
To: vchkpw@inter7.com
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Feature for vdelivermail
Hi Robin,
Zitat von
Zitat von Charles J. Boening [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't believe you need the HOME=$HOME/$EXT line. $HOME should point
to the user directory containing Maildir.
The first error was, that maildrop has forgotton the username. So
HOME=$HOME/$EXT ends in the absolute path to the maildir for me.
.com
Subject: RE: [vchkpw] Re: Feature for vdelivermail
Zitat von Charles J. Boening [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't believe you need the HOME=$HOME/$EXT line. $HOME should
point to the user directory containing Maildir.
The first error was, that maildrop has forgotton the
username. So
Inter7 launched eMPF.
Was eMPF inspired by this thread?
Regards,
bnegrao
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 10:05 am, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Inter7 launched eMPF.
Was eMPF inspired by this thread?
Partly from this thread.
And partly from Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.
Ken Jones
Guys,
I'd like to know where the vmoduser command stores its information about which
user can relay or cannot.
To proceed with my idea of internal-only accounts, I'm thinking about using this
database as my internal-only users list for the program I'll run using the
QMAILQUEUE patch.
Bruno Negro wrote:
Guys,
I'd like to know where the vmoduser command stores its information
about which user can relay or cannot.
To proceed with my idea of internal-only accounts, I'm thinking about
using this database as my internal-only users list for the program
I'll run using the
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19:53, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Wouldn't the string NOQUOTA be exactly in the place where there is a 60MB
in my example above?
Yes, sorry. I'm blind!
But this feature is still useful
I'm not sure how...what is the use you see? How on earth do you really intend
to stop
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 20:44, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
Maybe because of easier mail user management and the lack of necessity
to create a system user ID for every mail recipient?!
Well, I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I find it easier to manage
system users (who need not be able to
Hello Casey,
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 9:08:38 AM Casey wrote:
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 20:44, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
Maybe because of easier mail user management and the lack of necessity
to create a system user ID for every mail recipient?!
Well, I suppose it's a matter of opinion,
send
e-mail internally but cannot send or receive external e-mails.
As I reconized that his need probably will also be desired for a lot
of other companies, I think it's worth to discuss here which would be
the most appropriate manner to achieve this feature with Qmail and
Vpopmail
from the clients, then the mail will be relayed to the second
server if needed.
anyway, it would be a nice feature. but, imho, will be too complicated
to implement, in qmail+vpopmail.
wwell edi
receive external e-mail. They just can't send e-mail to
external accounts. If so,
this configuration still doesn't fully implement the internal-only
accounts feature I'm
looking for
1 - Disable the pop-before-smtp scheme by recompiling vpopmail.
( OR disable it just to a specific
vpasswd file,
And provided this program to be added by QMAILQUEUE variable, which would
look for the INTERNAL property inside each vpasswd file,
Then we would have this feature fully implemented.
Someone agree?
Regards,
-
Bruno Negrao - Network
If vpopmail start supporting a new user property, INTERNAL, inside
vpasswd file, like the prototype bellow:
patrick:$1$oza9XaY.qO8uXhlaR701:1:0:patrick is internal
only:/var/vpopmail/domains/exampledom.com.br/patrick:60MB:textpasswd:INTERN
AL
The only qualm I see with that is how upgrades
This could also be done with a flag in the vadduser/vmoduser programs?
Yes, perfect!
KBO (or some vpopmail developer), are you reading this thread?
Regards,
bnegrao
Hello Bruno,
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 2:29:58 PM Bruno wrote:
Let me see if I understood your plan. You say that, in order to disable the
RELAYCLIENT to just some accounts, and this way, setting them as
partially** internal-only, I should:
1 - Disable the pop-before-smtp scheme by
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 17:04, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
'vmoduser -rs' will disable relay *AND* disable SMTP-AUTH ability for
given e-mail-address, so even if they set up their MUA to do SMTP-AUTH
they'll not be allowed and therefore not gain RELAYCLIENT-privileges.
Keep in mind though, that
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 12:58, Bruno Negrão wrote:
If vpopmail start supporting a new user property, INTERNAL, inside
vpasswd file, like the prototype bellow:
patrick:$1$oza9XaY.qO8uXhlaR701:1:0:patrick is internal
only:/var/vpopmail/domains/exampledom.com.br/patrick:60MB:textpasswd:INTERN
AL
to allow them to send email out, then you shouldn't give that
employee a half-arsed E-mail account at all.
I understand your point. Makes sense. But this feature is still useful, and
there are commercial mail servers providing it, so I want to be able to do this
with qmail and vpopmail (or other add
the string NOQUOTA be exactly in the place where there is a
60MB in my example above?
I understand your point. Makes sense. But this feature is still
useful, and there are commercial mail servers providing it, so I want
to be able to do this with qmail and vpopmail (or other add-on
software
Hello Casey,
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 8:48:26 PM Casey wrote:
'vmoduser -rs' will disable relay *AND* disable SMTP-AUTH ability for
given e-mail-address, so even if they set up their MUA to do SMTP-AUTH
they'll not be allowed and therefore not gain RELAYCLIENT-privileges.
Keep in mind
Hi Peter,
'vmoduser -rs' will disable relay *AND* disable SMTP-AUTH ability for
given e-mail-address, so even if they set up their MUA to do SMTP-AUTH
they'll not be allowed and therefore not gain RELAYCLIENT-privileges.
when we use vmoduser command, where does it store the information of which
appropriate manner to achieve this feature with Qmail and Vpopmail.
THE IDEAL SCENE:
The ideal scene for me would be if vpopmail could provide a means for doing
this. To set the internal-only account I'd like to end up going to
Qmailadmin, editing the properties of some user account, and just
The ideal scene for me would be if vpopmail could provide a means for
doing
this. To set the internal-only account I'd like to end up going to
Qmailadmin, editing the properties of some user account, and just
checking
the new check-box: ( ) Internal-only account;
Look at how vpopmail
Hi Nick,
Sounds not terribly difficult, and does actually sound pretty useful.
Similar functionality exists in commercial servers like Exchange and
Domino, so obviously other folks find it useful.
Good to know that other mailservers already implement this feature. Maybe
this helps
Hello Bruno,
On Monday, June 13, 2005 at 9:22:50 PM Bruno wrote:
Now, the director of one of the companies I give support asked me to set a
bunch of e-mail accounts as internal-only, i.e., they can send e-mail
internally but cannot send or receive external e-mails.
vmoduser -r $ADDRESS
At
On Jun 13, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Now, the director of one of the companies I give support asked me to
set a bunch of e-mail accounts as internal-only, i.e., they can send
e-mail internally but cannot send or receive external e-mails.
It would have to take place entirely in
Tom Collins wrote:
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:25 AM, Dave Goodrich wrote:
I've read all the posts in the archive afterching on valias, a lot
of posts, and I think my assumptions are correct. I would like to know
if there are any limitations I should be aware of.
--enable-valias configures vpopmail
Hi,
I used qmails per-user wildcard system. Using this,
I can do user dash something at host dot com. For example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would like to continue to once I move to vpopmail. This
would have to be supported vdelivermail, I suppose, since the
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 14:51, Dan Grigsby wrote:
Hi,
I used qmails per-user wildcard system. Using this, I can do user
dash something at host dot com. For example, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am writing a little hack for myself to rewrite the messages to have
a non-wildcard name and add an extra
Thanks! I'm sorry if it is/was a FAQ. I looked (I thought) thoroughly.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Romero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Feature request: per-user wildcards/catchall
On Thu, 2004-04-15
Erik Bourget wrote:
Paul L. Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because vpopmail bridges so many divides, it cannot intuit what you want.
It doesn't know if you're using cdb for everything or using MySQL for
everything or whatever unless you tell it. But, wherever possible, it
should be DWIM.
Paul, quit emailing me offlist. I don't give a crap what kind of
drunken binge you are on.
Damm, I'll I did was offer a simple solution to a problem.
Just STFU and let it go.
Paul L. Allen wrote:
Erik Bourget writes:
You know, intense as this whole argument is, the fact remains that DWIM
is no substitute for proper documentation.
Let's see, the documentation says vaddaliasdomain original alias.
If you do what the documentation says, it works. If you reverse
Hello Red Herring
Nick Harring writes:
This whole argument is ridiculous.
Correct. So far I havw seen only one person post a sensible response,
You are NOT that person...
The correctness of design doesn't really rely on what some random users
first guess of how it should work would be,
A feature request for vaddaliasdomin. I would like a configure option
(best) or a command-line switch (not so good) that reverses the order of
the two arguments. I'd like it for two reasons:
1) It is then the same order as for ln (original, alias) so easier to
remember if they're that way
]
Subject: [vchkpw] Feature request for vaddaliasdomain
A feature request for vaddaliasdomin. I would like a
configure option
(best) or a command-line switch (not so good) that reverses
the order of the two arguments. I'd like it for two reasons:
1) It is then the same order
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 09:16 AM, Paul L. Allen wrote:
A feature request for vaddaliasdomin. I would like a configure option
(best) or a command-line switch (not so good) that reverses the order
of
the two arguments. I'd like it for two reasons:
What if it was automatic
The worst one of our clients has managed so far is 13, added in dribs and
drabs of two or three at a time. For one it makes no difference. For
hundreds I'd go the perl script reading a text file route. For twos and
threes the current argument order of vaddaliasdomain is annoying.
Write a
You don't read so good, do you?
JB writes:
Write a shell script that takes the arguments in the order you want and
pass them to vaddaliasdomain in the order expected,
I already explained that while I am more than capable of coming up with
that idea and implementing it all by myself, that
feel too imposing.
Thanks in advance for the patch.
Lu
-Original Message-
From: Paul L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:07 PM
To: JB
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [vchkpw] Re: Feature request for vaddaliasdomain
You don't read so good
and others
get a feature that would make us happy even though you would be unhappy
if FORCED to use that feature, if the feature is optional? Come on, what
makes you so insistent that I should not have something that I consider
useful if I do not force it upon you? Why is it that giving me
A one line bash script, which I provided will do the job for Millions of
people.
You could have fixed the problem yourself in less then 10 seconds,
instead, you flame me.
You are a fucking twit
Paul L. Allen wrote:
You don't read so good, do you?
JB writes:
Write a shell script that
JB writes:
A one line bash script, which I provided
Sorrry, I did not see your attachment in any of your posts. Please
repost it so that we all can benefit and the vpopmail maintainers can
distribute your wonderful script (if they think it is a sensible
solution).
will do the job for
Paul L. Allen wrote:
You don't read so good, do you?
snappy opener, i wonder what prompted this? whiners hate being called
whiners.
you are obviously a person who loves to whine and when not whining,
likes to rage.
am i correct in this? no need to reply, i'm confident in my analysis.
a better
even if they have
no idea how to add them to the code.
submitting suggestions for a new and questionable feature and puffing
your pet issue up with inflamatory
rhetoric like OBVIOUS DEFECT wastes valuable time and bandwidth. why
don't you address the real
bugs and such that are of a higher
Stop bickering please, common.
Difference between the origional and that what i changed around
Breached# diff vaddaliasdomain.c.backup vaddaliasdomain.c
56c56,57
printf(vaddaliasdomain: usage: [options] alias_domain
real_domain\n);
---
/* printf(vaddaliasdomain: usage: [options]
Hi,
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 23:31, Tom Collins wrote:
A feature request for vaddaliasdomin. I would like a configure option
(best) or a command-line switch (not so good) that reverses the order
of the two arguments. I'd like it for two reasons:
What if it was automatic?
A bit odd
Toasterz Admin writes:
Paul L. Allen wrote:
Toasterz Admin writes:
Actually, you're wrong.
how could i be wrong just because you say it's so.
What a wonderfully compelling argument. How could you possibly be
wrong just because I say so? Ummm, wait, you called me wrong
because YOU
Anders Brander writes:
A bit odd to document,
Damn right. I still haven't figured out a sensible usage message.
but otherwise a fabulous idea.
Bad Anders. Bad, bad, Anders. Letting people do what they find
easiest is BAD. Ask the people who criticised me for suggesting it.
Please
Stop bickering please, common.
Difference between the origional and that what i changed around
Breached# diff vaddaliasdomain.c.backup vaddaliasdomain.c
56c56,57
printf(vaddaliasdomain: usage: [options] alias_domain
real_domain\n);
---
/* printf(vaddaliasdomain: usage: [options]
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 03:26, Paul L. Allen wrote:
A bit odd to document,
Damn right. I still haven't figured out a sensible usage message.
I think we should just ignore the old way of calling vaddaliasdomain
in the usage message, in that way new users will adobt the new way of
doing
Hi Anders
Anders Brander writes:
I think we should just ignore the old way of calling vaddaliasdomain
in the usage message, in that way new users will adobt the new way of
doing things.
Ummm, that implies that one way is more correct than the other. I do
not believe that to be the case. I
what they want. Tom
seems to have come up with a better idea than mine, and if somebody is
willing to code it then that is my preference. But I give you my thanks
for understanding why I requested this feature and coming up with a
partial solution.
--
Paul Allen
Softflare Support
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 03:46, Paul L. Allen wrote:
I think we should just ignore the old way of calling vaddaliasdomain
in the usage message, in that way new users will adobt the new way of
doing things.
Ummm, that implies that one way is more correct than the other. I do
not believe
Hi Anders
Anders Brander writes:
Hummm Or something like:
... the two domains to be aliased ... - without saying which is which,
for the user it doesn't matter much.
Oh Anders, I need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! It's
because I'm a boring old fart that I desperately
Hi all,
I am trying to disable the pop before smtp feature in my vpopmail
installation. Is there any way to do it without recompiling the software?
I am running vpopmail 5.0.1
--
Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cell. +39 339 8925947
Net-IT s.r.l.
Tel. +39 (0)547 332212
via Fano
Hello Riccardo,
On Thursday, September 4, 2003 at 3:10:29 PM you wrote (at least in
part):
I am trying to disable the pop before smtp feature in my vpopmail
installation. Is there any way to do it without recompiling the software?
In general: NO.
In this special case: you can point
Thank you really.
Well, I'll recompile it as soon as I have some time available...
thank you
Peter Palmreuther wrote:
Hello Riccardo,
On Thursday, September 4, 2003 at 3:10:29 PM you wrote (at least in
part):
I am trying to disable the pop before smtp feature in my vpopmail
installation
If I'm not in confusion, you could just enable (for all users) the flag
related to NORELAY, and put the line disabling this feature into the limits
file (I don't know anymore where this file is).
Ciao,
Tonino
At 04/09/03 04/09/03 +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to disable
Einstein
-Mensaje original-
De: tonix (Antonio Nati) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: Jueves, 04 de Septiembre de 2003 11:13 a.m.
Para: Riccardo Gori; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: [vchkpw] disable pop before smtp feature in vpopmail
If I'm not in confusion, you could just enable
Kenneth Ling wrote:
which version of qmailadmin ?
v1.0.24
http://www.sourceforge.net/qmailadmin
(That's the development version)
Jeff
--
/\ /\ ......[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ \/ \ a t r i x . . . . . . . (770) 794-7233
s o f t w a r e i n c ....
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
... atleast ist not too good and i investigated for 3 houres by now to find
this problem.
hi !
all started with users complaing thtat the autoresponder does not work for
them. after 3 houres i found the problem - and - i considder it a BUG :-)
or
Matthias Henze wrote:
when i create an account, say [EMAIL PROTECTED] and i create a vacation message
every this works fine when i mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] i get the autoresponse.
ok, but what happens when i create an alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED], say,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with qmailadmin? a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ok, thanks, but one question:
does qmailadmin in this newer version keep existing lines in .qmail files?
i use maildrop ... so I've patched the last version (don't ask) i've
downloaded to do so.
TIA
matthias
- --On Montag, August 04, 2003
Matthias Henze wrote:
ok, thanks, but one question:
does qmailadmin in this newer version keep existing lines in .qmail files?
i use maildrop ... so I've patched the last version (don't ask) i've
downloaded to do so.
If you are using maildrop for spam protection, the new version of
which version of qmailadmin ?
tq
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Hedlund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] is this a bug or a feature ???
Matthias Henze wrote:
ok, thanks, but one question:
does qmailadmin
Hello Peter,
Sunday, May 25, 2003, 5:01:26 AM, you wrote:
MDaemon has the feature Honor Return-Receipt-To: headers - when it
receives message with such header it writes e-mail like this:
PP [...]
how could this feature be done with vpopmail?
PP MANPATH=/var/qmail/man man qreceipt
Hello Alexander,
On Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 1:12:48 PM you wrote (at least in part):
MDaemon has the feature Honor Return-Receipt-To: headers - when it
receives message with such header it writes e-mail like this:
[...]
how could this feature be done with vpopmail?
MANPATH=/var/qmail
It should be possible, with a change to vset_default_domain in
vpopmail.c (and maybe some other locations). Either that, or make sure
that other references to DEFAULT_DOMAIN are removed and
vset_default_domain is used instead.
Ok I will look into that, thank you.
Note that vpopmail will
Hi Anders,
Does anyone know a workaround until either vpopmail reads SSLREMOTEIP
or ucspi-ssl sets TCPREMOTEIP?
How about something like (untested):
(env TCPREMOTEIP=$SSLREMOTEIP /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw)
in your startup script instead of just
HI guys I know this is OT but is there a way that you may
know to have quota setting configuration only on specific domains? Maybe just specifying the option in the .qmailadmin
settings.
THANKS,
REMO
Hi out there,
I have a small feature request for vpopmail. Currently, I'm checking out
if I could successfully use ucspi-ssl instead of ucspi-tcp for accepting
network connections. Things are a lot easier with this tool, because you
can simple set up your SSL certificates and replace tcpserver
Hi,
On Monday 03 March 2003 00:44, Jonas Pasche wrote:
Does anyone know a workaround until either vpopmail reads SSLREMOTEIP
or ucspi-ssl sets TCPREMOTEIP?
How about something like (untested):
(env TCPREMOTEIP=$SSLREMOTEIP /home/vpopmail/bin/vchkpw)
in your startup script instead of just
On 3 Mar 2003, Jonas Pasche wrote:
The drawback is that tcpserver sets (besides others) the environment
variable TCPREMOTEIP, which vchkpw uses for logging and for opening
dynamic relays. sslserver from the ucspi-ssl package set SSLREMOTEIP
instead, which causes vchkpw to stop logging IP
Hi all
Is there any solution with qmailadmin which provide me the facility so
that the postmaster of the domain can set the user quota under his
domain.
Vqadmin is not the solution as it give the access to all domains.
Please give the workable solution..
--
MANISH JAIN
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Il 09:13, venerdì 7 febbraio 2003, Rhett Hermer ha scritto:
If djb doesn't want to improve qmail with all of those patches et al, then
what's stopping us to write new MTA based on qmail design? Is there any
restriction that I am not aware of?
I don't think that anybody here want to write
-Original Message-
From: Davide Giunchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:56 AM
To: Rhett Hermer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request
Il 09:13, venerdì 7 febbraio 2003, Rhett Hermer ha scritto:
If djb doesn't want
On Thursday 06 February 2003 01:49, Ken Jones wrote:
On Wednesday 05 February 2003 18:22, you wrote:
snip
It would be great if you knew of any C programmers with a few
hours to spare. then we could hook vpopmail into qmail-smtpd
and block the email right at the front door.
I know C, and I
Hey, one of my clients bought a domain which was previously held by
someone else. This of course meant that lots and lots of spammers were
sending mails to a couple addresses on that domain, and he'd like to be
able to mark certain explicit addresses for bouncing, while retaining the
And secondly, I don't like patches.
I believe you're using the wrong MTA if you don't like patches. :-)
Qmail is the a patchy mail server of mail servers.
Regards,
Andrew
On Thursday 06 February 2003 11:04, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
And secondly, I don't like patches.
I believe you're using the wrong MTA if you don't like patches. :-)
Qmail is the a patchy mail server of mail servers.
I keep hoping that will change sometime soon. :) I guess no-one has
released
it automatically
and you must adjust it by hand an headache
So a project that will put all this useful patches in a big patch will be very
very useful, i think that the patch allowed must be very selected to maintain
the qmail code clean as from djb, and the best would be that the feature
qmail-0.0.0.0
qmail-1.03-qmtpc
qmail-bouncecontrol
qmail-1.03-tls
netscape-progress
qmail-send.mimeheaders
qmail-pop3d+vpomail
yes, patch upon patches... the same thing that other's qmail administrator has
done. For this reaseon i've proposed the project described in my previous
mail
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Kohlsmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] Re: Qmailadmin feature request
I believe you're using the wrong MTA if you don't like
patches. :-)
Qmail
yes, patch upon patches... the same thing that other's qmail administrator
has done. For this reaseon i've proposed the project described in my
previous mail about this thread.
Exactly. I'm saying I've _got_ a master patch that does this, and none of the
patches in the master list are
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:02:36 -0500 Andrew Kohlsmith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I would like to see is a update made to the qmail smtp daemon
so it will look up the email account and return a failure 500 message.
Then by default, the email addresses that don't match would be
Just out of genuine curiosity, were you actually seeing problems that
required each of those patches? I've been running a
qmail/vpopmail/sqwebmail/qmailadmin setup for the past year now and have
yet to actually find need for a patch.
Not problems per se, but rather features I would like to
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
