Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
> From: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To:"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:05:36 -0500 > Reply-to: "Fred Lindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Priority: Normal > Subject: Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ... > What do you think of that ??? I think the "Red Hat Linux release 5.2 (Apollo) Kernel 2.0.36 on an i686" and the "FortKnox Proxy Telnet (Version 4.0)", and the "FortKnox Proxy Transparent FTP (Version 4.0)" and others are all messed up. Try telnetting to mailhost.temex.fr, ports 21 and 25 using Windows' telnet and you'll see why... :-) > As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500 > generated when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer, > here was their answer... Any idea ? > > >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ... > > > >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 > > > >After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT > >To:", but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after > >"RCPT To:" processing. /Matti Aarnio Regards, Andrzej Kukula
Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
D. J. Bernstein writes: > DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E. writes: > > What do you think of that ??? > > I think that patches are a support nightmare. What you're using isn't > qmail, so don't call it qmail, and don't ask the qmail list for help. I agree. How about giving us permission to distribute a modified form of qmail in source and executable form as long as we call it something other than qmail? If you do that, then the need for patches will go away, and there won't *be* any patches for qmail. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
On 13 May 1999 05:42:23 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >I think that patches are a support nightmare. What you're using isn't >qmail, so don't call it qmail, and don't ask the qmail list for help. So, DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E., the problem isn't qmail, but in a patch applied to add [desired additional] functionality. What patches are you using in you PIPELINING-violating installation? What can be done to fix the bug in the patch? Which patch should others avoid to avoid violating rfc2197? -Sincerely, Fred (Frederik Lindberg, Infectious Diseases, WashU, St. Louis, MO, USA)
Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E. writes: > What do you think of that ??? I think that patches are a support nightmare. What you're using isn't qmail, so don't call it qmail, and don't ask the qmail list for help. ---Dan
Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
On Wed, 12 May 1999, DUGRES Hugues, I.T. manager at C.Q.E. wrote: What do you think of that ??? As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500 generated when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer, here was their answer... Any idea ? Matti is definitely wrong. I just ran my own pipelining test, 1000 RCPT entries, two messages, all sent in a single i/o operation. Worked fine. He's probably doing something silly, like not waiting for the responses to complete, or not using canonical line termination or something (I've done both of those before, with predictable results). -- Jeff Hayward >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ... > >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 > >After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:", >but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:" >processing. >/Matti Aarnio > > > We aim at delivering high specification products at very competitive prices. For all your filters, resonators, oscillators and rubidium clocks, think TEMEX Time & Frequency. /---+--\ | | TEMEX Time & Frequency | | TT TT FF | C.Q.E. | | TT TTFF | 2, rue Robert Keller| | TT TT | 10150 Pont-Sainte-Marie | | TT TTFF | France | | TT TTFF | tel : +33 (0)3 25 76 45 00 | | | fax : +33 (0)3 25 80 34 57 | \---+--/ For more details, please : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or visit our web site http://www.tekelec-temex.com
Re: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
"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 >> >>After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:", >>but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:" >>processing. >>/Matti Aarnio I conducted a simple pipelining test with three RCPT's and a DATA, and it worked fine as far as I can tell. Matti may have a point, but he's failed to make it. -Dave
QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ...
What do you think of that ??? As I complained to sorena (the editor of ZMailer) of errors 500 generated when there was a connection in between Qmail and Zmailer, here was their answer... Any idea ? >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: QMAIL definitely violates PIPELINING specification ... > >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 > >After that "MAIL From:" command it reads successfully the "RCPT To:", >but it would loose any input (at least the "DATA") after "RCPT To:" >processing. >/Matti Aarnio > > > We aim at delivering high specification products at very competitive prices. For all your filters, resonators, oscillators and rubidium clocks, think TEMEX Time & Frequency. /---+--\ | | TEMEX Time & Frequency | | TT TT FF | C.Q.E. | | TT TTFF | 2, rue Robert Keller| | TT TT | 10150 Pont-Sainte-Marie | | TT TTFF | France | | TT TTFF | tel : +33 (0)3 25 76 45 00 | | | fax : +33 (0)3 25 80 34 57 | \---+--/ For more details, please : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Or visit our web site http://www.tekelec-temex.com
