Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 03:20, Paul J Stevens wrote:
>> I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into
>> CVS, and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable
>> attribute, but I don'
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:27:59AM +0200, Ilja Booij wrote:
> It also changes all the use of the status field in messages table to
> be through the following #defines:
>
[...]
> #define STATUS_DELETE 2
> #define STATUS_PURGE 3
These are a bit confusing because rather than giving a status they
des
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 03:20, Paul J Stevens wrote:
> I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into CVS,
> and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
>
> Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable attribute,
> but I don't think they should be acquired
i think this should be posted to the normal dbmail list but oh well no
problem
the 'f' option inserts a forward from one email address to another;
i.e. you should use
dbmail-adduser f [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this will forward all mail send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi, I hope this is the right mailinglist.
I have a system with Dbmail 1.2.1 , Exim 4.21 and SquirrelMail. Which
works great and i havent had any problems sofar.
But when i try to have dbmail send a copy of a mail to a specific user
it wont work,
I add an alias by:
dbmail-adduser f user [EMAIL P
Hi all,
I've included Jesse Norell's misc patch (from sourceforge.net) into
DBMail 1.x CVS
for those of you who are to lazy to point your webbrowser to sf.net,
I've
included Jesse's comments that come with the patch below.
Parts of this patch will be included in DBMail 2.0 . Some changes to
Hi,
my thoughts exactly :)
Any luck with the pre-forking stuff yet?
cheers,
Ilja
On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 09:20 Europe/Amsterdam, Paul J Stevens
wrote:
I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into
CVS, and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
Don't get
I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into CVS,
and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable attribute,
but I don't think they should be acquired by forking existing files.
Personally, since I'm workin
