On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 13:05, Paulo Ricardo wrote:
> What is the best tools to work w/ exim ?
> smtp...exim
> anti-virus.clamav
> spam...spamassassin or ???
> scanner??
I would recommend the exiscan-acl patch for Exim, which lets you run
content checks a
has been delivered.
This makes the decision very easy for me, I never consider Cyrus.
Someone is about to claim that Cyrus delivers huge performance. I've run
250,000 users per mail store using Maildir format, Courier and Qmail, given a
choice I'd do it all the same apart from usin
> pop/imap...courier or Cyrus ???
I'm curious about this one. I've been postponing installing one of these
'till someone with knowledge about both can give some info about the
choice. Any other imap/pop servers that are an option?
tinus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 03:54:07 +1000,
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:01, Rich Puhek wrote:
> > Ted will know a lot more about this than I do, but I'd think that if
> > the first two superblocks are corrupt, the likelihood of superbl
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:01, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Ted will know a lot more about this than I do, but I'd think that if the
> first two superblocks are corrupt, the likelihood of superblock number 3
> or whatever being good is pretty low compared to the odds that the
> drive/parition is shot. Perhaps t
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..and after a journal death, and fsck, the raid set will be able
to re-establish itself, no? Or does the journal do both/all disks
in a raid set?
The FS doesn't know or care about RAID-anything, as far as I know.
Doesn't the FS just tell /dev/hda1, /dev/sda1, or /dev/m
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:03:17 -0400,
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:04:19AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
> >
> > ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
>
> If you have rand
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:04:19AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
>
> ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
If you have random disk corruptions happening as often as you are, no
filesystem is going to be able to help you. The only question is how
Cameron Moore wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Coker) [2003.09.10 20:16]:
Also you can't have a ReiserFS file system mounted read-only while fsck'ing
it. Which makes recovering errors on the root FS very interesting to say the
least.
What I hate about ext3 is that it doesn't poorly handles
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:22, Cameron Moore wrote:
> > Having a file system decide to panic the kernel because your mount
> > options instructed it to (ext3) is one thing. Having the file system
> > driver corrupt random kernel memory and cause an Oops (Reiser) is
> > another. The ReiserFS team's re
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Coker) [2003.09.10 20:16]:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
> > ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
>
> ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations
> such as "find
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
>
> ..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations
such as "find /" trigger a kernel Oops.
Having a file system decide to panic th
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:39:44 -0400,
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably
> > > better to force the system to reboot so you can res
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably better to
> > force the system to reboot so you can restore service ASAP.
>
> ..even for raid-1 disks??? _Is_ there a combination of raid-1 and
> journalling fs'es for l
Monday 08 of September 2003 04:00, Craig Sanders >
> difficult to learn, just a PITA and completely unlike any other unix tools,
- does not support de-facto logging standard - syslog
- does not support CIDR
- does not support IPV6
...
> that it is far more important for his programs to be consis
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:05:24 -0400,
Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > What happens on error conditions can be set through tune2fs or as
> > > a mount option. Having it remount read-only is
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 22:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> > until the entire message has been received and processed, the receiving
> > MTA is not responsible for the message. In fact, I think this is
> > RFC-specified. Why then, if the receiver isn't resp
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > What happens on error conditions can be set through tune2fs or as a
> > mount option. Having it remount read-only is probably better than
> > panicing the kernel.
>
> ..yeah, except in /var/log, /var/spool et al, I also lean toward
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) [2003.09.07 20:55]:
> qmail is so different to sendmail, exim, postfix, and just about every other
> unix MTA that migrating to it is a major PITA. migrating away from it is at
> least as bad. qmail has some very nice features, and is much faste
On Monday 08 September 2003 14:41, mimo wrote:
> I have just played around with dovecot imap server. I can use your
> existing mail spool files. Also it allows for craetion of IMAP folders
> in users' home dirs which worries me a bit. I'd rather have the mailbox
> in MySQL or something like that. B
I have just played around with dovecot imap server. I can use your
existing mail spool files. Also it allows for craetion of IMAP folders
in users' home dirs which worries me a bit. I'd rather have the mailbox
in MySQL or something like that. But that's a differnet discussion I
guess.
Michael
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:43:33PM +1000, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> > Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
>
Well Rudi,
You have heard from most camps of users who prefer MTA's for various
reasons. Interesting enough, Debian ships exim default, and uses Mailman
for it'
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:14:09PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
> > First, scale is a consideration. Once we began to grow our customer
> > base, our email volume began to increase dramatically. Qmail queues
> > everything to d
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:54:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> - qmail has a good integration with one of the fastest mailing list
> servers, ezmlm.
ezmlm is probably the best thing about qmail. however, it's also an example
of the technology trap that i referred to in a previ
something technically inferior about exim or
> postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or politically, I suppose, since much of
> people's dislike about qmail has more to due with "political" than
> technical reasons.
there are technical and "political" reasons to avoid
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:43:33PM +1000, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
neither. postfix is the answer.
postfix is backwards compatible with sendmail (meaning minimal disruption
during the migration) with better security, speed, and features than qmail (
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:20:12 +1000,
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:17, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..I have had a few cases of ext3fs'es, even on raid-1, going
> > read-only on errors, what do you guys use to bring them back
> > into se
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:54:28AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> Hear hear! Nationality doesn't matter. We're talking about technical merit
> of things here. Let's keep race, creed, religion, colour out of this.
If we gave that impression, that was not the idea. If someone has that
feeling, my apol
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:48:42PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Hans,
>
> Glad to hear the situation is getting better in .nl. Having been hit by
> several 10s of spam from some dutch provider the other day just didn't imply
> this :-)
I
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:17, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..I have had a few cases of ext3fs'es, even on raid-1, going
> read-only on errors, what do you guys use to bring them back
> into service?
What happens on error conditions can be set through tune2fs or as a mount
option. Having it remount read-onl
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 12:34:45 +1000,
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Also I believe that in Ext3 if you write data to a file and then
> unlink the file before the data is committed to disk then the data
> will never be written. So there seems no loss as
On Sunday 07 September 2003 15:48, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Apologies - missing attribution. This was Brian:
> > What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> > people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
> > for a discussion bet
Hans,
Glad to hear the situation is getting better in .nl. Having been hit by
several 10s of spam from some dutch provider the other day just didn't imply
this :-)
> What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and m
also sprach Thomas Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.1414 +0200]:
> Complete ACK. I'm also willing to give support, as I use
> postfix+mysql+sasl at a couple of clients.
did you ever get sasl to work with mozilla clients in any but the
non-plaintext forms? i'd really appreciate help here!
--
also sprach Nathan Eric Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.2025 +0200]:
> News flash: the FHS specifies how distributions should (or should not)
> lay out filesystems. The FHS does not prohibit end users from
> creating new root-level directories.
executables alongside configuration files in
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:47, Jason Lim wrote:
> Mmm... one of the limitations of Qmail is that it creates many many
> individual files (one for each email) and due to filesystem limitations,
> EXT2/3 starts slowing to a crawl. Of course, another way would be to use
> ReiserFS, but wouldn&
> Please people,
>
> What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
> for a discussion between kids. We are adults, we are professionals, this
> list is to discuss technicall matters (personal opinions a
W.D. McKinney top-posted:
>I know of several "big" mail servers running qmail and the sys admins
>don't have the same viewpoint that you do. That doesn't make you wrong
>or them wrong though.
We're both right. Qmail meets my needs on my personal systems,
where I
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> > I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> > in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> > (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
>
> Running the queue on a ramdi
- Original Message -
From: "Cameron L. Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 07 September, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in
calls sync()).
> > I'm not sure what the situation was like in 1999, now Qmail and LDAP
> > support is adequate.
>
> But only with patches to the source code. And since it sounds like you
> can't distribute modified binaries, you'd have to patch/build qmail on
&
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Running the queue on a ramdisk would kill reliability.
Us
Hmm.
Since '98 ...good for you.
All the patches in the world don't help some folks anyway.Qmail has many
ways to skin a cat.
In the end, it's pick a horse and ride it. Exim, Postfix, Sendmail and
qmail all have querks. Like the Mutt homepage, "All mail clients suck.
This
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:19:54PM -, Cameron L. Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I've given up on Qmail. I'm using Exim for small systems,
> and I'll try Postfix for my next big one.
Why won't you give exim a try on bigger systems?
--
To UNS
I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
(Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Howabout in an fs made in a file mounted looback?)
It's secure and reliable.
Unfortunately, it's not being maintain
Please people,
What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
for a discussion between kids. We are adults, we are professionals, this
list is to discuss technicall matters (personal opinions allowed).
P
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:01:29PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Friday 05 September 2003 13:45, Nico Meijer wrote:
>
> > - wietse venema is [...] d) dutch
>
> Taking into account that .nl is one of the major sources of spam right now
> (through a2000.nl a
> that violates the FHS[1] big time. I don't see the merits in qmail
> to account for this compromise.
>
> 1. http://www.pathname.com/fhs
News flash: the FHS specifies how distributions should (or should not)
lay out filesystems. The FHS does not prohibit end users from
creat
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 11:19, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> cyrus huh? in that case: is cyrus-popd a drop-in replacement for UW-pop
> (ipopd) on debian?
> I seem to remember it is not.
You are correct. Cyrus uses a completely different method for storing
mail, so you cannot just install its POP daemo
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:31, Guus Houtzager wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > > political implications of generating tech support calls
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> > I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get m
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 10:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> > I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get m
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get me started on THAT. 8^o
sorry to butt in, but HOW could you se
MTA is not responsible for the message. In fact, I think this is
RFC-specified. Why then, if the receiver isn't responsible, would it
want to spend disk I/O queuing a message that may end up being rejected
or may fail to come completely in?
> I'm not sure what the situation was like in
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [2003.09.04.1447 +0200]:
> > Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be
> > interested in elaboration, if there is something technically
> > inferior about exim or
On Friday 05 September 2003 13:45, Nico Meijer wrote:
> - wietse venema is [...] d) dutch
Taking into account that .nl is one of the major sources of spam right now
(through a2000.nl and plant.nl), I'm not sure if this counts for or against
using postfix.
-- vbi (Happy postfix user)
(Since ex
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0740 +0200]:
> This is illegal. And in any case, it's not official.
Correction, this is not illegal, but only if you install a package
that violates the FHS[1] big time. I don't see the merits in qmail
to account
Hi Martin,
> - ralf hildebrandt uses postfix (he's the guru, next to wietse.
- ralf hildebrandt and patrick koetter (the other guru) are coming out
with a book on postfix (http://www.nostarch.com/postfix.htm)
- wietse venema (postfix's author) is a) capable b) generally a nice
person, or so i've
also sprach W.D. McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0448 +0200]:
> > - qmail isn't available as a binary package for Debian
>
> Wrong. See http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
This is illegal. And in any case, it's not official.
> > - qmail support i
also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0207 +0200]:
> I'd add:
> - exim has the most extensive and useful documentation
>
> (But I'd love to be proven wrong!)
possible, although i do find the stuff on postfix.org adequate.
maybe not for MTA newbies but for people with experienc
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
> First, scale is a consideration. Once we began to grow our customer
> base, our email volume began to increase dramatically. Qmail queues
> everything to disk, so the more mail you do, the more pressure you put
> on your disk I/O.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:51:41PM -0800, W.D. McKinney wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
>> Sendmail's milter plug-in system has also been invaluable when we
>> implemented server-side bayesian spam filtering, and as we work on virus
>> scanning.
ask again and get the latest from this list.
> >
> > Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
>
> Rudi,
> I work at an ISP that used to use Qmail, but now uses Sendmail. There
> are several reasons why the switch was made, none having anything to do
> with the "religio
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 14:54, martin f krafft wrote:
> - qmail isn't available as a binary package for Debian
Wrong. See http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
> .
> - qmail support includes being flamed by the author
Wrong. Ask a question and find out. Many helpful people who don'
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:54:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Mostly good comments (I've never used postfix or exim -- comments seem
accurate from what I've heard) but I have to disagree with this:
>- qmail support includes being flamed by the author
I've subscribed to the
> random notes (these are facts and opinions, please don't flame me):
>
> - sendmail and exim are both single setuid binaries. bad.
> - postfix is the most performant of all four.
> - qmail has an interesting but possibly confusing configuration paradigm
> - postfix has th
ere is something technically
inferior about exim or postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or
politically, I suppose, since much of people's dislike about qmail
has more to due with "political" than technical reasons.
random notes (these are facts and opinions, please don't flame
also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.04.1447 +0200]:
> Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be
> interested in elaboration, if there is something technically
> inferior about exim or postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or
> politically, I supp
El jue, 04-09-2003 a las 07:58, Eric Sproul escribió:
> We chose OpenLDAP. At the time (1999), Qmail
> did not have LDAP support (correct me if I'm wrong). Sendmail did.
> Even if Qmail did have LDAP support then, Sendmail's source was *much*
> easier to dig through for
d around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like
> > to ask again and get the latest from this list.
> >
> > Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
>
> Rudi,
..how about Postfix? On chosing Sendmail, you obviously
rejected it, but why?
--
..med vennlig hilsen =
x27;s come down to a choice of three.
a) Sendmail
b) Qmail
c) Postfix.
Well Qmail is out I think - for Religous reasons.
See I'm Religous - that's why I use and love Debian ;-)
As for Sendmail, well some say it's full of holes but as
Eric has noted those bugs get ironed out pro
n Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
>> I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
>> ask again and get the latest from this list.
>>
>> Sendmai
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
> I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
> ask again and get the latest from this list.
>
> Sendmail or Qmail ? That is m
> It doesnt at all Not to ellaborate, but the subject says it
> all...even then. I hate exim too.
Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be interested in
elaboration, if there is something technically inferior about exim or
postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or politica
> At this stage I'm leaning towards sticking with Sendmail but something
> inside wants to know more about Qmail.
I'd pick exim or postfix over either of those, but then again I've only
dealt with smaller mail installations.
Take care,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clif
Hi,
so how does exim compare in all of this?
Sorry Jamie - In my case, and my case alone, Exim doesn't compare.
There are many very good MTA's out there.
For me I know Sendmail - ( I compile from source ).
I've heard lots of good things about Qmail to I did consider that one o
El jue, 04-09-2003 a las 01:47, Jamie Baddeley escribió:
> so how does exim compare in all of this?
>
It doesnt at all Not to ellaborate, but the subject says it
all...even then. I hate exim too.
> jamie
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Hi,
>> Why change something thats
working perfectly ??
Greg .. Yes that's what I was thinking .. -- but that's what they also
said in Nth America 'til the recent blackouts :-(
>> And it has no paralell in security (AGES and AGES better than sendmail)
Alex .. That's what mostly appeals to
so how does exim compare in all of this?
jamie
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:10, Alex Borges wrote:
> It all depends
>
> qmail has a very non standard way of being managed. Its almost
> meta-unix. That said, its VERY flexible, extremely powerfull, once you
> get a hang of it INC
I'm using Qmail for over 4 years on small installations without any
problems
The biggest problem with qmail is DJB's attitude.
The people on the qmail list have the same attitude, but they know
everything about the source and can help you.
I only install Qmail..
Maurice Lucas
On Th
It all depends
qmail has a very non standard way of being managed. Its almost
meta-unix. That said, its VERY flexible, extremely powerfull, once you
get a hang of it INCREDEBLY EASY to manage. And it has no paralell in
security (AGES and AGES better than sendmail)
Sadly, its non free. You
Why change something thats working perfectly
??
- Original Message -
From:
Rudi Starcevic
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 3:43
PM
Subject: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
Hi,Sorry to bother you all with this repeat
question.I've
Hi,
Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
ask again and get the latest from this list.
Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
Currently we use Sendmail. It's worked fine, well actually problem
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 at 13:18:21 +0200, M.S. Lucas wrote:
>
> I want to use Qmail with Amavis and Spamassassin on a Debian Woody server.
> Qmail and Spamassassin are both available on Woody but Amavis isn't.
>
> What source do you use for the (backported) amavis packages
&g
Hello,
I want to use Qmail with Amavis and Spamassassin on a Debian Woody server.
Qmail and Spamassassin are both available on Woody but Amavis isn't.
What source do you use for the (backported) amavis packages
I used
deb http://people.debian.org/~nobse/debian/woody/backported ./
on a
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Ariel Graneros wrote:
> I prefer postfix, it is rock solid everywhere i use it, has fewer security
> issues than sendmail, is quite powerful, and the best of all, is veery easy
> to configure. Anyway, i've never tried anything else.
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2003 12:10:17 -0300
> "A
I prefer postfix, it is rock solid everywhere i use it, has fewer security
issues than sendmail, is quite powerful, and the best of all, is veery easy to
configure. Anyway, i've never tried anything else.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 12:10:17 -0300
"Ana Paula Sabelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Ariel Graneros wrote:
> I prefer postfix, it is rock solid everywhere i use it, has fewer security issues
> than sendmail, is quite powerful, and the best of all, is veery easy to configure.
> Anyway, i've never tried anything else.
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2003 12:10:17 -0300
> "A
I prefer postfix, it is rock solid everywhere i use it, has fewer security issues than
sendmail, is quite powerful, and the best of all, is veery easy to configure. Anyway,
i've never tried anything else.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 12:10:17 -0300
"Ana Paula Sabelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
Greetings!
On Wed, 21 May 2003 18:40:36 +0200 Franz Georg Köhler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I?m setting up a mail server, I ?d like to hear opinions about which
> > one is better.
>
> It depends on your personal preferences.
>
> I favor exim: http://www.exim.org/ .
Main question: what do y
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:10:17PM -0300, Ana Paula Sabelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear opinions about which
> one is better.
Qmail. Even though it has some problems too, as every piece of software
does, they are in no way of the same mag
> I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear opinions about which one
> is better.
My favorit ist qmail.
Take a look at http://www.pipeline.com.au/staff/mbowe/isp/webmail-server.htm
greets
-
Diese eMail ist ein Service von
Wird noch
> better.
>
> Personally, I don't like qmail mainly because of its license (I never
> explored further than that), and because about the only things I regularly
> hear is that it has some obscure 'features' where the authors opinion differs
> from everybody e
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 07:10, Ana Paula Sabelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear opinions about which
> one is better.
>
> TIA
>
> Ana Paula Sabelli
OK, it's a sysadmin preference type isssue for sure. Having run
Sendmail, Exim, Postfix,
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 17:10, Ana Paula Sabelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear opinions about which one is
> better.
Personally, I don't like qmail mainly because of its license (I never
explored further than that), and because about the only thin
At 12:10 PM 5/21/2003 -0300, Ana Paula Sabelli wrote:
Hi,
I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear opinions about which one
is better.
TIA
Ana Paula Sabelli
Personally, I use Postfix.. It handles just about anything I need to throw
at it..
-Splash
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:10:17PM -0300, Ana Paula Sabelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
> I?m setting up a mail server, I ?d like to hear opinions about which one is
> better.
It depends on your personal preferences.
I favor exim: http://www.exim.org/ .
Hi,
I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear
opinions about which one is better.
TIA
Ana Paula
Sabelli
message flow:
1. Qmail receives a message for a local user.
2. qmail-lspawn invokes /var/qmail/bin/qmail-local, which is in fact a
symlink to a tweaked amavis-sh script.
3. The script invokes:
cat | ${formail} -f -A "${X_Header_String}" >${tmpdir}/receivedmail
which stores the messa
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 16:27, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
> LifeWithQmail.org does have a lot of information about setting up Qmail,
> but there's parts of it that I can't even get working. Here's the output
> of qmail-showctl. You can see below that I'm having some
101 - 200 of 363 matches
Mail list logo
