On Wednesday 12 January 2005 18:34, Eric Jennings wrote:
> We've experienced some issues with courier-imapd and Mail.app,
> specifically where certain IMAP sub-Maildir mailboxes wouldn't display
> within Mail.app. The mailboxes work great within Thunderbird.
>
> It's been infrequent enough where
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 08:58, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:40:21AM -0500, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > On my Woody box, courier-mta logs pop transactions with the tag
> > "courierpop3login:". The logs of other courier users (freebsd, gentoo
[ Is debian-mentors the proper list for this type of packaging question? ]
On my Woody box, courier-mta logs pop transactions with the tag
"courierpop3login:". The logs of other courier users (freebsd, gentoo for
example) have the string "pop3d:"
It has been suggested that this is a change the
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 08:55, Emmanuel Lacour wrote:
> As I understand, he want to authenticate users with ssl certs
Courier can do SASL_PLAIN auth for imap and pop auth.
See /etc/courier/imapd and /etc/courier/pop3d.
Regards,
Mark
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 03:53, Jens Zahner wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > Beyond the documentation and the comments in the files in
> > /etc/courier, you mean?
>
> I couldn't find any helpfull information about ssl cert based auth
> neither in the files nor in the documentation and google c
On Friday 10 December 2004 09:36, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> (1) If SPF HELO checking is on and lookup matches connecting IP
> --> PASS
[..]
> Otherwise, return 517 HELO $hostname does not match $remote-ip
Sorry to reply to myself, but this sequence is more complicated if SPF
checki
[CC'ing Bill Taroli who has been helping me with this on courier-user]
On Friday 10 December 2004 07:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 10 December 2004 00:39, Mark Bucciarelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > I've recently turned on EHLO/HELO v
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 17:55, Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 08:47 +1100 Craig Sanders
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Now I reject by 554 code... should I change to 4xx?
> >
> > if it suits your needs. i wouldn't.
>
> I have to agree with that statement. For
On Monday 22 November 2004 15:04, Robert Cates wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I gotta take something back... I just checked again, closer, and I'm
> not able to collect my mail either, using POP. I however do not get any
> kind of connection error, and the log file shows:
>
> Nov 22 20:56:13 lion courierpop
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 10:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> DEFAULT=/var/spool/courier/user/$LOGNAME/Maildir
> $HOME=/var/spool/courier/user/$LOGNAME
^^^
This dollar sign looks wrong.
> MAILBOX=$HOME/Maildir
> $INCLUDE=$MAILBOX
Try it without the dollar sign prefixes; that is,
DEFAULT=/var/s
On Monday 15 November 2004 17:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> so really, this is 2 problems in one: one is the .mailfilter file isn't
> read, and that log snippet which no sense.
Seems like the same problem--mailrop is not given the correct home dir.
Put some logging in /etc/courier/maildroprc a
On Thursday 11 November 2004 17:04, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 22256 Bad HELO
wow.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 06 November 2004 22:19, Rodney Richison wrote:
> Are most of you using exim or postfix? Just curious. I've never tried
> exim.
neither. courier-mta. just starting to have some production experience,
and so far i like it quite a bit.
i chose it because it has everything integrated
On Friday 05 November 2004 16:19, Stephen Le wrote:
> I don't think sudo is appropriate for what I'm trying to do. I'd like
> users to have limited shell access; I'm not trying to give them access
> to special commands. Besides, telling users to prefix every command
> they run with 'sudo' would be
On Saturday 07 August 2004 01:33, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> G'day,
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Bucciarelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 12:17 AM
> Subject: Restoring /etc
>
>
On Friday 29 October 2004 16:39, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.29.1920
+0200]:
> > what about some kind of cheap usb storage for each machine?
>
> Then I could just take the USB stick, put it onto my laptop, and
&
On Friday 29 October 2004 13:03, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> So these are the four possible ways I can think of, and not a single
> one is satisfactory.
i'm a wizard-wannabe, but i'll reply anyway.
what about some kind of cheap usb storage for each machine?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Monday 18 October 2004 16:15, Ian Forbes wrote:
> What mount options give the best performance, "noatime" "data=journal" ?
The fellow that runs KDE's news site recently did some investigation of
speed / disk usage for Zope's object database vs. ext3. He figured the
hierarchical nature of th
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 10:52, Dale E Martin wrote:
> Anyways, I would like to disable password logins for root on several of
> my boxes but allow root to come in from known IPs and with known ssh
> keys. Is there a way to disable password logins for root in sshd_config
> or root/.ssh/config, w
I screwed up my /etc directory bigtime. I wanted to put it under CVS to
maintain a history, but didn't realize that CVS does not honor symbolic
links. Of course, I didn't backup before rm -rf /etc; cvs co etc. Doh!
I have another Debian stable box and I tried recreating the rc.? and
alternat
On Thursday 24 June 2004 10:09, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if
> > you do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> into exim4 in sp
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in
> their DNS.
Looks like you can
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
>
> so
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:48, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM:
> > > > header, not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > >
>
On Thursday 24 June 2004 10:09, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > For most cases, it doesn't cost anything to implement SPF now. And if
> > you do it, and tell two friends, and they tell two friends ...
>
> well, this may be correct. However i miss the config sniplet to drop
> into exim4 in sp
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:23, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to oth
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is not going to match
> that of your hosting account or
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> > SPF is a proposed standard.
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> > Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> > Che
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> most ISPs (and mail service providers like yahoo and hotmail), for
> instance, will never have SPF records in their DNS. they may use SPF
> checking on their own MX servers, but they won't have the records in
> their DNS.
Looks like you can
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:48, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM:
> > > > header, not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
> > >
>
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:17, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Am Do, den 24.06.2004 schrieb Mark Bucciarelli um 14:06:
> > I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. SPF checks the MAIL-FROM: header,
> > not From:, so I think this case should work fine ...
>
> so
On Thursday 24 June 2004 08:23, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> > > outgoing SMTP (port 25) to oth
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:58, Jason Lim wrote:
> This also applies to most hosting companies. If your ISP prevents
> outgoing SMTP (port 25) to other mail servers and you are forced to use
> your ISP's mail servers, then the "mail server" is not going to match
> that of your hosting account or
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 20:51, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:05:57PM -0300, Yves Junqueira wrote:
> > SPF is a proposed standard.
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
> > Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF.
> > Che
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 12:31, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:24:26PM -0400, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > I like logcheck because it is simple. But it's not packaged for
> > Debian, so maybe no-one here uses it. If not, what tool do you
> > recomme
I'm thinking about using the logcheck [1] program for intrusion detection,
and was wondering if anyone here uses it. If so, have you modified the
keyword filter files?
I like logcheck because it is simple. But it's not packaged for Debian, so
maybe no-one here uses it. If not, what tool do y
On Tuesday 08 June 2004 12:31, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:24:26PM -0400, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > I like logcheck because it is simple. But it's not packaged for
> > Debian, so maybe no-one here uses it. If not, what tool do you
> > recomme
I'm thinking about using the logcheck [1] program for intrusion detection,
and was wondering if anyone here uses it. If so, have you modified the
keyword filter files?
I like logcheck because it is simple. But it's not packaged for Debian, so
maybe no-one here uses it. If not, what tool do y
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:58 pm, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500
> megs on a busy mail day.
hmmm, from the two responses i got, sounds like we could run many more
sites on this box. 100? 200? if disk space and bandwidth is no
proble
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:58 pm, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500
> megs on a busy mail day.
hmmm, from the two responses i got, sounds like we could run many more
sites on this box. 100? 200? if disk space and bandwidth is no
proble
I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
mod_v_host to serve up to 50 domains and will also be an email
server. PHP + MySQL also. It's expected that most of the domains
will be small fry, probably mos
I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
mod_v_host to serve up to 50 domains and will also be an email
server. PHP + MySQL also. It's expected that most of the domains
will be small fry, probably mos
42 matches
Mail list logo
