RE: feel like flamed or stupified?

[Jamin Collins]

Mate Wierdl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This has the added benefit that if the person not only sends his
> message to the list but to you as well, both messages will be ignored.

It doesn't however do anything about their messages getting quoted by other
users.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: Minimum OS Requirement to run Qmail

[Jamin Collins]

Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Why DeadRat? For a server, I'd go for a leaner distribution like
> Slackware or Debian (i.e. one that won't install GNOME, 27 X-Servers and
> 4 RDBMs if you click "Server install"). Also, apply the following
> liberally: LIDS: http://www.lids.org/.

RedHat doesn't install GNOME or even X if you choose a server install.

Here is the relavent section of RedHat/base/comps on RH7:

0 --hide Server {
  @ Mail/WWW/News Tools
  @ Web Server
  @ Anonymous FTP Server
  @ Printer Support
  @ Networked Workstation
  @ Dialup Workstation
  @ Network Server
  @ Network Management Workstation
  @ Emacs
  @ Development
  @ Utilities
}

0 --hide Workstation Common {
  @ Printer Support
  @ X Window System
  @ Mail/WWW/News Tools
  @ DOS/Windows Connectivity
  @ Utilities
  @ Graphics Manipulation
  @ Multimedia Support
  @ Networked Workstation
  @ Dialup Workstation
  @ Authoring/Publishing
  @ Emacs
  @ Development
}

As you can see X is only installed under the Workstation install.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: Flaming newbie's makes no sense

[Jamin Collins]

From: Felix von Leitner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:

> Free Software, in contrast, is supposed to work like this:
> 
>   I write good software.
>   Others help me.
>   The software gets better.

This is a very selfish view.  Based on these statements, you only care about
software in so much as you can gain from it.  This is a key difference
between you and I.

> Currently, it's more like this:
> 
>   I write good software.
>   Millions of brain-dead lusers ask dumb questions.
>   I get discouraged and stop supporting my product.
>   Some newbie takes over the project and the quality goes 
> down the drain.

Are you trying to say that only you can write quality software, or that no
one can match your quality?

Jamin W. Collins

RE: why didn't it send my msg?

[Jamin Collins]

QBA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> How can I check if I have qmail-smtpd enabled on my host?
> Thanks in advance,

This would depend on how you installed qmail.  Are you using inetd.conf
setup or something else?  The inetd.conf method is the easiest IMHO to get
configured to start with, but many others suggest using tcpserver in the
long run.  So, just to get stared, what do you have in your /etc/inetd.conf?

Jamin W. Collins

RE: Help with setting up qmail

[Jamin Collins]

Amar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I have setup qmail using the .gz format and i did all as 
> instructed in the
> INSTALL files
> i dont get any error msg
> but,
> i cant receive mail
> i can send out successfully

what do you have in your /etc/inetd.conf

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Andy Bradford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> - Be brief without being overly terse.  When replying to 
> a message,
>   include enough original material to be understood but 
> no more. It
>   is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including
>   all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material.
> 
> * Did you do this?

Originally, no.  Have I been since it was pointed out? Yes. Sorry for the
error on my part there.  However, that was not one of the items in the list
you quoted.
 
> - Do not include control characters or non-ASCII attachments in
>   messages unless they are MIME attachments or unless your mailer
>   encodes these.  If you send encoded messages make sure the
>   recipient can decode them.
> 
> * Are you 100% certain that everyone on the list can read your goofy 
> windows font/content-type

I must admit that I can not guarantee that everyone on this list can read
it, but I dare say that you or anyone else out there would be hard pressed
to be 100% certain that everyone could read their messages.  As for the
character set, it is a modified version of ISO-8859-1.  I would be
interested to know how many people on this list do have problems reading it
(please e-mail me privately).  

> - Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages.  If you
>   have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via
>   FLAME ON/OFF enclosures.  For example:
>   FLAME ON:  This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth
>  it takes to send it.  It's illogical and poorly
>  reasoned.  The rest of the world agrees with me.
>   FLAME OFF
> 
> * Is not your original post based on emotional response to someone 
> elses?  Just because they respond emotionally, does that justify your 
> ignorance of the same?

My original posting could be consider emotional.  However, it was not a spur
of the moment response.  I have watch the rude responses to questions on
this list for quite some time.  This is not the only list that I'm
subscribed to, it does however have more rude responses than any of the
others I'm subscribed to.

> - A good rule of thumb:  Be conservative in what you send and
>   liberal in what you receive.  You should not send 
> heated messages
>   (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked.  On the other
>   hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's
>   prudent not to respond to flames.
> 
> * No comment.

Only one person here has been flaming IMHO, no need to mention names.

Thank you for your kind and informative response.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: Using this list for QMail Support questions...

[Jamin Collins]

Robin S.Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmail:
> qmail: For discussion of the qmail package, the qmailanalog package,
> the dot-forward package, and the fastforward package. To subscribe,
> send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is
> unmoderated and high-volume. There is a hypertext archive of the
> mailing list at ORNL. 
> 
> Please read FAQ, PIC.*, and the other documentation in the qmail
> package before sending your question to the qmail mailing list. 
> 
> 
> May I (gently) draw your attention to the last paragraph? And may I
> also invite you to read: http://qmail.org/top.html#paidsup ?

This reinforces the statement that the qmail list a support list.  Granted
it asks that you "please" read the appropriate document before posting.
However, it does indicate that the list is an appropriate place to send
questions regarding qmail.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Louis Theran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:

> Really?  Is this a digression because you've already contacted LWQ's
> author with suggestions?  Have you posted anything to this list about
> the specific problems you had with INSTALL?

No to both, because I have not yet completed my configuration.  Once I have,
I will rebuild it again, and possibly one more time.  Just to be sure I have
what I want and that I know exactly how I did it.  Then, I will compare what
I've done with what is in the instructions for LWQ and possibly INSTALL.
Then I will submit my findings as appropriate.

> If you think that new users aren't well served by the available
> documentation, then you should contribute.  Somebody else wrote qmail
> for you.  Somebody else wrote LWQ for you.  You've even gotten help
> from the qmail list.

I absolutely agree, and fully plan to.

> Complaining about other posters won't help any new users.  If that's
> what you actually care about, try fixing the ``inadequate''
> instructions.

Again, I absolutely agree.  However, there is one thing missing here.  None
of this justifies beratting someone for asking for assistance.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:

On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Barley wrote:
> > True
> > intelligence is indicated by a broader understanding of 
> things, and the
> > contributions that many different people have to offer.
> 
> So ... this says that all those that cannot describe their problems
> properly are idiots, because they are lacking the broader 
> understanding of
> the problems they have and thus are unable to ask the right questions.
> 
> Where's the difference between what Robin said and what you say?
> 

The difference is that Robin seems to take the stance that if you are not a
Linux or Unix GOD then you are an idiot.  Barley on the other hand indicates
that one can be intelligent and yet not know anyone about a given area.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Markus Stumpf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Sure, or don't answer them and get 10 eMails followed shortly 
> after like
>"I still have the problem and no one helps me. This list 
> is sooo unpolite"

I'm not saying that some of the user's are rude, or that they do not post
statements like the above.  Does this however mean that because there are
some people out there that it is alright to berate newbies before they have
done so?  IMHO no.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> You called the docs "highly inadequate", not "a little lacking when it
> comes to helping someone completely new to qmail". In my 
> book, calling 
> something highly inadequate *is* calling it bad.

Now, we are getting into a matter of semantics.  It was not my intention to
say the documentation was bad.  I would say that your documentation is
actually, better than what comes with qmail.  However, I do still see it as
lacking where a new user is concerned.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> * Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How exactly is my MUA broken?  
> 
> * Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

And which RFC does this violate?

> * No reference headers (*GREAT* for breaking archives)

I've checked RFC 822 and it would appear that this is an optional item.
Thus, an MUA is not "broken" for not having it.  Granted it might be nice
for the MUA to have this, but you can't have everything can you.

> * 6 attribution lines

Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.  If it is,
which one?

> * No citation leader 

Once again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.  If
it is, which one?

> * Trailing blank line

And yet again. Don't believe this is a requirement or violation of any RFC.
If it is, which one?

Unless I'm wrong it would appear that your complaints are all optional or
preferential items.  This being the case, the MUA is not broken.

 
> > I've included the original text of the message I've responded to.
> 
> How very useful.

Some would see it as such.

> > I've simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line
> > of the original message.
> 
> Rather "I'm too fscking stupid to even find it among 2001 menues in
> Outlook", eh? 

And I see that we are back to name calling.  Again, how original.  I can see
that you don't like Outlook.  I don't much either, but there are reasons for
it (which have nothing to do with qmail so I won't bother listing them).
 
> > How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for
> > professional help?
> 
> In general or in your particular case?

Since you asked, in general.
 
> > What brings me to post?  Simple, I like to help people learn more
> > about computing.  
> 
> The blind leading... C'mon, Jamin, you've had your 264 lines 
> of fame. Now
> go away, will you? You're about to start a war you'll never 
> understand.

And I see that once again you have resorted to name calling.  Just because
you may have more expertise (for whatever reason) on a topic than someone
else does not in any way mean that the other person is blind.  Additionally,
it does not ensure that the other person does not know more about some other
topic than you.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Dave Sill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> I'm not a big fan of newbie smackdowns, though a repeat 
> offendor might 
> warrant one. I think newbies generally respond better to reward than
> punishment. E.g., instead of:
> 
>   Your mailer is broken.
> 
> I'd say something like:
> 
>   Please don't include messages you're replying to as appendages to
>   your own messages. It's a waste of bytes, and it annoys many
>   people--most of whom are too polite and/or busy to bother
>   complaining. Instead, quote small passages, prefixing each line
>   with ">". This puts the relevant information right where it's
>   needed, and makes it easy for people to tell who said what.
> 
> The former approach *might* work, but is more likely to offend the
> newbie. The latter is polite and informative. An educated, unoffended
> newbie is much more likely to want to change his ways.

Thank you, and yes, the later would have been much better.

> >As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and 
> the installation
> >instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly 
> inadequate.
> 
> Ouch. "... LWQ ... [is] ... highly inadequate." In a way, of 
> course, I 
> completely agree. I've tried to make it newbie friendly, but nobody
> knows better than I that it still leaves some newbies behind.

Again thank you.
 
> However, 
> I have to ask why you didn't complain to me when you were having
> problems with it. Without such feedback, there's not much 
> chance of it 
> getting fixed.

I have every intention on supply statements to you once I have a completed
my installation.  As for why I didn't complain to you, I figured I would
look elsewhere for the information, rather than pestering the author with
questions.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

I'm sorry, I don't recall having posted a Unix question to this list.
However, if some did perchance make that mistake, is it really so difficult
to politely point them to the correct list?

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: Amitai Schlair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)


on 11/29/00 9:47 AM, Jamin Collins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help.

The people who often provide help simply expect the same sort of courtesy.
Remember who's doing whom the favor, and that this list is about qmail, not
Unix.

If you want to learn Unix, either find a Unix (list|book|shell) and use it,
or cleverly couch your Unix difficulties to appear as politely framed qmail
questions.

- Amitai

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

Since you've asked, my problem with your posting specifically is as follows:

>Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help
>off 
>list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is

>no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should

There is no need to refer to his posting as "such nonsense".  Additionally,
there is no call/need for the statement about "busy people".  I believe it
is well known that people read this list on their time and any answer is
essentially a donation from their time.  However, conversely, no one is
forced to read or answer these postings.  Everyone (to my knowledge) does
this of their own free will.  As such, asking for help (whether on the right
list or not) is in no way wrong.  Berating someone for doing so is rude.

I'm glad your installation went so smoothly.  However, many other's do not.
I'm sure that many of these come down to simply syntax errors.  I will admit
that I had a few in my first installations.  These would have been easily
corrected by another set of eyes.  However, due to the repeatedly rude and
snappy reply's from this list, I did not post concerning my initial
problems.

As for the statement you claim I made "the docs are all so bad because i
couldn't install qmail with 
them", I did not say this.  I simply stated that I was unsuccessfull in my
attempts to install qmail using them.  I did not state they were bad, I even
stated that I was sure they would be of help if I were to use them at my
current point.  In short, I believe they may be a little lacking when it
comes to helping someone completely new to qmail.  This may not be the case
of all new users, but it is the case for at least a few.

Jamin W. Collins



-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:35 AM
To: Jamin Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)


I don't see your problem. he was on the wrong list as this is qmail-ldap 
specific. he posted to the qmail-ldap list too, so nobody can tell me he 
didn't know about this list. I answered anyway.  I asked him if the file 
mentioned in the error msg exists. if so, i requested more info than one
line 
of log. if not this had proven that he didn't read a single line of 
documentation.

in general everybody posting questions here should have a thought who's 
answering, and that these people are no paid support staff. so i can expect 
that the poster has
-read the docs
-spent some thoughts one what he's writing
-spent some thoughts on what information would be needed for support
-provided full logs somewhere for download

If he only posts a single line from the log without even mentioning the file

exists and it is readable, without telling us os, qmail version, patch 
version, ldap server and version, it's somehow sure that he hasn't spent any

thought on that.
Dan used a subject of "How to discourage free software support" on a mail 
regarding this on the dns list. that's exactly the point IMHO.

btw, i did my first qmail installation (long tome ago...) within one hour
and 
without any third party documentation aside from a problem with daemontools,

i solved this with a short look to lwq. i don't know why you did not
succeed, 
but telling us "the docs are all so bad because i couldn't install qmail
with 
them" is an inadequate statement.

Greetings

Henning

-- 

Henning Brauer |  BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS  |  Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de|  Germany

RE: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

How exactly is my MUA broken?

I've included the original text of the message I've responded to.  I've
simply chosen not to add anything to the beginning of each line of the
original message.

Now, you've resorted to name calling?  Quite the original.

How does a request for common courtesy indicate a need for professional
help?

Telling someone to RTFM would be helpful, if the manual being referenced as
indicated.  As there are several files in the qmail distribution that all
refer to other documents, it is possible that some may not locate the
correct manual.

When exactly did I call Dave Sill an asshole?  I simply made meantion that
his HOWTO did not assist in my configuration of qmail.  This is not a
derogatory statement in any fashion.  Simply a statement of fact.  As for
providing clarifications to the document, I very well may once I have qmail
configured the way I would like it.

If you see the questions of users on this list as bothersome, I'm sorry.
However, as membership to the list is voluntary, you are not being forced to
read them.  In short, if you don't like them, don't read them.  

What brings me to post?  Simple, I like to help people learn more about
computing.  I also like to learn what I can where I can.  Again, I'm sorry
this doesn't fight your perception of the computer industry.

Jamin W. Collins


-Original Message-
From: Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:19 AM
To: qmail mailing list
Subject: Re: List Courtesy (was Newbie question)


* Jamin Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whines:

> I may be out of line here.  However, this is not the first time I've
> seen snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking
> for help.  I am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent.

*sigh* Is it September again? Just for completeness' sake: not only is
your MUA broken to the degree of utter braindeadness, you've also included
60 linux of *un*quoted quotes. Has anyone called you a clueless luser
lately?

> There is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or
> may not be needed to diagnose a problem.  As many of the people
> posting without this level of information are new to either Linux or
> qmail (or both) there needs to be some understanding on everyone's
> behalf.  

Like what? If you need professional support, there are links galore on
http://qmail.org/. If you want to be spoonfed, you're simply looking in
the wrong place.

> And telling someone to RTFM is normally of little to no help.  

The qmail docs are terse but exhaustive. We're not talking about running
$PORNO_VIEWER.exe but about a mail server - if you're too stupid to
manage even the initial setup, you *just* *don't* *need* *one*.

> As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the
> installation instructions with qmail itself are for the most part
> highly inadequate.

Not quite. They're just not idiot-proof. But you've found that our
yourself already.

> I tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the
> source twice, with no luck.  

See, that's your problem: contrary to popular superstition (fed by the
New Cultural Imperialism from Redmond) it does not take /luck/ to install
software. It takes /knowledge/. You appear to have neither. Well, tough
luck.

> Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck.  

Yeah, right, Dave Sill really *is* an asshole: charging breathtaking
amounts of money for his crappy docs and not even dumbing them down so
that an amoeba^W^Wyou can understand them. It's free software, lackwit:
contribute nothing, expect nothing. Why didn't you fix the passages that
were "inadequate" and send Dave the patches, Jamin?

> [...] The documentation that currently exists is really only helpful
> to someone that has already installed the software once before.

U... nope.

> [...] Snapping at a user asking for help will accomplish nothing more
> than making the user angry and hesitant from posting in the future.

Do I care about angry lusers? I don't think so. Is it a Good Thing if
they don't bother people trying to get some work done? Sure is. So there.

> IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other support list.

It might come as a suprise to you and your likes, but this is /not/ a
support list. It's a discussion list. If you want support, you can find
the links to comm...

> All I ask is that common courtesy be extended to those asking for
> help.

Sure. Now, be a kind luser and do your reading. When you're done and
have reached the minimum level of cluefullness required for running an
internet service, come back and ask informed questions.

Sometimes I wonder what brings people like you to posting this whining
luser shit over and over and over again? This is not your new-age pink
treehuggers society - this is a technical discussion list. IT-Darwinism,
y'know? Survival of the brightest and, like, stuff. Huh-huh.
-- 
Robin S. Socha 
Enhanced for MSIE 5.5: <http://socha.net/>

List Courtesy (was Newbie question)

[Jamin Collins]

I may be out of line here.  However, this is not the first time I've seen
snappy rude responses from people in response to others asking for help.  I
am simply quoting this message as it is the most recent.  

Sure, some of the postings for help may not contain all the information that
a more experienced person would have.  But to respond to them with a
statement to the effect of "send all necessary information" is crazy.  There
is a certain level of experience necessary to know what may or may not be
needed to diagnose a problem.  As many of the people posting without this
level of information are new to either Linux or qmail (or both) there needs
to be some understanding on everyone's behalf.  And telling someone to RTFM
is normally of little to no help.  I've been told several times to RTFM
without any indication as to which manual.  This is of little to no help to
anyone.

As for qmail, I will be the first to tell you that LWQ and the installation
instructions with qmail itself are for the most part highly inadequate.  I
tried setting qmail up just from the instructions included with the source
twice, with no luck.  Additionally, I tried LWQ twice, with no luck.  It
wasn't until I purchased "Running qmail." that I actually got the thing to
work.  I'm sure that if I went back to either set of instructions (source or
LWQ) that both would be adequate for the installation now that I've done it
before.  However herein lies the problem.  The documentation that currently
exists is really only helpful to someone that has already installed the
software once before.  But, I've digressed.

IMHO, everyone that is offering help via a list such as this should be
courteous to those asking for help.  If you can't be courteous, I ask that
you please refrain from posting.  Snapping at a user asking for help will
accomplish nothing more than making the user angry and hesitant from posting
in the future.  IIRC, these are not the goals of this list or any other
support list.

I realize, as do most of the user's posting, that support here is provided
by individuals donating their time of their own free will.  All I ask is
that common courtesy be extended to those asking for help.

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:11 AM
To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Newbie question


Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 15:11 schrieb suresh:

Suresh, for first writing such nonsens to the list and asking me for help
off 
list does not fit together. before asking other busy people for help (it is 
no paid support staff here, we all have our work to do!), you should

-have read the docs at least twice
-checked if you fulfilled the requirements for qmail-ldap, both on you 
installation and youself (yes, the wonderfull sentence "you should have 
fairly good knowledge of qmail and ldap..." and so on in bold letters aside 
to the dowload link on the wepages
-if you ask a question, provide all necessary information, in general as
much 
as possible. At least OS, versions (including patch version), _complete_ 
logs, configuration
-checked all logs yourself, including ldap logs, set loglevel to highest 
possible value - helps a lot


> PLEASE DO NOT READ NEWBIE QUESTION IF WANT TO USE THOSE DEROGATORY
> STATEMENTS .YU DONT EVEN HELP EITHER .I AM SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO
> WOULD LIKE TO HELP!
> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:55 AM
> To: suresh; Qmail-Ldap@Argus. Pipeline. Ch
> Subject: Re: Newbie question
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, 29. November 2000 13:24 schrieb suresh:
>
> You are giving us much to less infos to help you. Check if the file
> mentioned
> in the error message exists and is world readable. If not, RTFM before
> asking
> here.
>
> > Hi
> > I have installed qmail-ldap patch,whenever i start the qmail ,i get this
> > info
> > I have made a file in the control folder and i tried by entering the ip
> > address as well as by the dns name
> > i am not able start the debug process even after i set the env variable
>
> ,Is
>
> > there any particular syntax i should be calling qmail-start for this?
> >
> >
> > bash-2.03# Nov 29 11:11:21 qmailjol qmail: [ID 748625 mail.alert]
> > 975467481.7424
> > 69 alert: cannot start qmail-lspawn or it had an error! Check if
> > ~control/ldapse
> > rver exists
> >
> > Suresh
> > Mithi.com Pvt. Ltd.
> > --
> > Send and receive mail in Indian languages
> > Register free at http://www.mailjol.com
>
> --
>
> Henning Brauer |  BS Web Services
> Hostmaster BSWS  |  Roedingsmarkt 14
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  20459 Hamburg
> www.bsws.de|  Germany

-- 

Henning Brauer |  BS Web Services
Hostmaster BSWS  |  Roedingsmarkt 14
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  20459 Hamburg
www.bsws.de|  Germany

RE: Mailbox ownership

[Jamin Collins]

"maildirmake" will create a MailDir formatted directory for mail storage.
If I'm reading the previous post correctly he is talking about a Mailbox
file not MailDir directory.

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: Robin S. Socha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 4:42 AM
To: Qmail mailing list
Subject: Re: Mailbox ownership


* Neil Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> should the user own the Mailbox file in their directory and what
> attributes need to be set?

As I said:
"the user should own the Mailbox file in their directory and the
attributes should be 700 as set my maildirmake."
-- 
Robin S. Socha 

Courier or qmail

[Jamin Collins]

Well, it seems the answer to my last question has raised yet another.

Has anyone on the list used Courier as a complete mail server?  If so, how
does it compare to qmail?

I started looking at qmail because of the security flaws that other's have
reported in sendmail.  However, now that I'm looking more into qmail, the
lack of static licensing concerns me.  I may be wrong, but from the looks of
it, Courier does most of what qmail does, and provides a more standard
license with the software.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just looking for advice from other
more experience Mail Server Admins.

Jamin W. Collins

IMAP and Maildir

[Jamin Collins]

I guess I'm looking for the best of both worlds here.  Does anyone know of a
an IMAP implimentation that supports the qmail Maildir format?

Jamin W. Collins

Minor Annoyance

[Jamin Collins]

It's only a minor annoyance, but is there a particular reason that replies
to list posts go back to the author of the post rather than the list?  I
only ask because I know that every other list I subscribe to has it set so
that the reply address is the list not the individual.

Jamin W. Collins

RE: Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_file_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set

[Jamin Collins]

Do the accounts that are experiencing this problem have a .qmail file in
their home directory?  If so, what are the permissions on the file?

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_file_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set


Hi,

Thanks to everyone who solved my last qmail problem, it now works great!
But on some POP accounts I get this error in my /var/log/qmail/current -

delivery 5: deferral:
Uh-oh:_.qmail_has_file_delivery_but_has_x_bit_set._(#4.7.0)/

It only happens on some POP accounts.  I am using /Maildir/.  Any ideas what
the problem is and how I can fix it,

Thanks,

Jon

RE: secrets and lies

[Jamin Collins]

I may be missing some of the point here, but the way I see it, there is a
distinct desire to have a license provided with the software indicating what
is and isn't allowed.  This is a fairly normal practice in the software
industry (open and closed source alike).  

IMHO, the license included with the software serves as a static marker of
sorts.  While future versions of the license may change and be included with
future versions of the software, they don't apply to previous versions of
the software that where shipped with another license.

It is this peace of mind that I too would like to see.  I'm in no way
attempting to take away the author's right to change a license for their
software.  However, if I've accepted one license on a piece of software
because it meets my needs and I can deal with any requirements of the
license, I would like to know that the license is not going to change.  This
is not too much to ask.

If the author then wants to put a web page up with the most current version
of the license, great.  However, I think there are many others like myself
out there, that would like to see a copy of the license (as it pertains to
the software at the time the software was released) included with the
software.

Note:
If anyone out there knows of a company that successfully changed their
license for software and made those changes effective retroactively, I would
like to know.

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: secrets and lies


Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe he'd think about changing dist.html.  After he changed it,
> could I then continue distributing this package without fear of
> being sued?

If the new dist.html said no, then it would seem clear that you
couldn't.  This is not an ambiguity in the current or potential future
dist.html, but I think I see your point now: you want to know what you
will *always* be allowed to do with qmail, not just what you are
allowed to do today.  (Right?)

Well, barring future changes in copyright law (which could potentially
invalidate *any* statement we might make today), you will always be
allowed to patch, compile, back up, and run qmail.  You will always be
allowed to distribute your patches, since you hold copyright on them
(I think).  Additionally, you can redistribute vanilla qmail today.
You do not have the guarantee that you will always be allowed to
redistribute qmail, but this is not ambiguous - it's clearly, if
implicitly, unspecified.  If you agree with this but call it
"ambiguous" instead of "unspecified", then I guess we'll just have to
be more careful how we use such words to avoid confusion.


paul

RE: Qmail repeating system name in address

[Jamin Collins]

I apologize for my error in not providing the actual logs.  I had thought I
did provide enough detailed information.  I am very sorry for my error in
judgement.

However, it appears that my problem may have been that I was using the
system name only, not the FQDN.  I would like to thank everyone for their
rapid responses.

Jamin W. Collins

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:34 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Qmail repeating system name in address


On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:17:25PM -0600, Jamin Collins wrote:
 
> As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery.  Every
> test message I tried would result in a bounce.  In the bounced message I
> could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
> the addresses.  For example if I addressed a message to "user@system"  the
> bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  I only have three control
> files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts.  All of these files have
the
> same information in them.  Originally this entry was "system".  However in
> order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".  
> 
> Can someone explain why this was necessary?  I feel that if I understand
> this, it will help with future delivery problems.

Jamin. When someone comes to you with a problem, what's the first thing
you do? Do you perchance ask for exact evidence to help you narrow down
the possibilities? Do you perchance want to see the output of what happened?
Do
you perchance want to dive into log files to see what the system was doing?
Do you
perchance want to see exactly what they've done so you can try to reproduce
it?

Guess what? People on this list are no better than you. We need actually
real-life
examples and actual real-life log file entries to understand the problem. So
how
about showing us the bounces (with headers) and the associated log file
entries?


Regards.

Qmail repeating system name in address

[Jamin Collins]

First let me state that I'm sure this is a rather stupid question, but I was
stumped by it for a bit.  If this is covered in a HOWTO or other document
somewhere, please feel free to refer me to said document.

I've been attempting to setup a qmail server for a short time now.  I've
looked at several different sources of documentation and each of them seem
to have a different manner of going about the setup.  For right now, I'm not
overly concerned with all the nifty optional items.  I would much rather get
a simple qmail install up and running and then look into tweaking it to my
needs.

As it stands currently I've been stuck at testing local delivery.  Every
test message I tried would result in a bounce.  In the bounced message I
could see that for some reason qmail was adding additional information to
the addresses.  For example if I addressed a message to "user@system"  the
bounce message would show "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  I only have three control
files at the moment: me, locals, and rcpthosts.  All of these files have the
same information in them.  Originally this entry was "system".  However in
order to stop qmail from repeating I had to change this to "system.".  

Can someone explain why this was necessary?  I feel that if I understand
this, it will help with future delivery problems.

Jamin W. Collins