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 response
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 probably
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 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. But
* [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 faster and far
more
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
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 /var
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!
--
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
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 between
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 long
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-only
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 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
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 service?
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 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 previous message
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 disk, so the more mail you do
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's Debian hosted lists
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 and
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).
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 maintained by its
author. If you want
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 UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
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 one just sucks less
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.
Using a non-volatile RAM device
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 long as the file isn't opened with O_SYNC
and you don't call fsync() (and no-one calls sync()).
I'm not sure what the situation was like in 1999, now Qmail and LDAP
- 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 disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
(Anybody tried
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.
Indeed, been there done
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 don't need authentication out of a database or
SMTP AUTH or milters or mailing
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
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't doing a FS
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 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 for this compromise.
1
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
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 postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or
politically, I
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 1999, now Qmail and LDAP
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 set
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 me started
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 me started
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 about why
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 daemon.
. 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
creating new root-level directories.
--
Nathan Norman
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 free
so better
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 have
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
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 Thu, 2003-09
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 INCREDEBLY EASY to manage
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 me
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. Trouble?
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 only.
Also every
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, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior
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 politically, I
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 my question.
Rudi,
I work at an ISP
, 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 my question.
Rudi,
I work at an ISP that used to use Qmail, but now
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 pronto and apt
sorts the rest out
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 the performance tuning we
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 suppose, since much of people's
, if there 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 me):
- sendmai
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 the easiest configuration, IMHO
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 qmail list more
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't flame
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 religion surrounding either one. The following is my
opinion, illustrated with some examples from my
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.
qmail being modular has
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. The server running
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 experience
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 includes being flamed by the author
Wrong. Ask
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
I used
deb http
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,
I´m
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
Ana
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,
I´m
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
Ana
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 nicht
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 magnitude as sendmail's
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 you
Hi,
I´m setting up a mail server, I ´d like to hear
opinions about which one is better.
TIA
Ana Paula
Sabelli
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/ .
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 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 things I regularly
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, qmail and atmail, we have settled
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 else's.
I stopped using sendmail because I really like to *understand
of the 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 message (read from
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 problems.
qmail home directory
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 problems.
Blake,
Forget about the part where you have to compile
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 problems.
Blake,
Forget about the part where you have to compile qmail
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 problems.
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal
Hi, I'm trying to setup a web and email server for our LUG. I've chosen
qmail for my MTA. I'm having a rough time getting it configured though.
There aren't too many tutorials around online on how to configure qmail,
so I'm pretty much stuck on where to even start. :( Does anyone know of
any good
Blake Covarrubias wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to setup a web and email server for our LUG. I've chosen
qmail for my MTA. I'm having a rough time getting it configured though.
There aren't too many tutorials around online on how to configure qmail,
so I'm pretty much stuck on where to even start. :( Does
LUG. I've chosen
qmail for my MTA. I'm having a rough time getting it configured though.
There aren't too many tutorials around online on how to configure qmail,
so I'm pretty much stuck on where to even start. :( Does anyone know of
any good tutorials or HOWTOs that'll help me setup qmail
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 02:32:09PM -0700, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
[ please don't top post ]
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:37, Mark Sprong wrote:
Blake Covarrubias wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to setup a web and email server for our LUG. I've chosen
qmail for my MTA. I'm having a rough time
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 problems.
qmail home directory: /var/qmail.
user-ext delimiter: -.
paternalism (in decimal
Hi,
Is there someone who's using Spamassasin together with Qmail (Gerrit
Pape's packages)? I am trying to get this combination working, but didn't
succeed yet.If someone knows a good how-to document I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance!
- Jasper
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Try this
http://www.magma.com.ni/~jorge/spamassassin.html
If you have any grief let me know as I've got it running here from these
instructions
Dave
At 13:16 25/02/2003 +0100, Jasper Metselaar wrote:
Hi,
Is there someone who's using Spamassasin together with Qmail (Gerrit
Pape's packages)? I
Hi,
Is there someone who's using Spamassasin together with Qmail (Gerrit
Pape's packages)? I am trying to get this combination working, but didn't
succeed yet.If someone knows a good how-to document I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance!
- Jasper
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 05:16, Jasper Metselaar wrote:
Is there someone who's using Spamassasin together with Qmail (Gerrit
Pape's packages)? I am trying to get this combination working, but didn't
succeed yet.If someone knows a good how
Actualy its quite easy to get spamassassin to work with qmail, install and
run spamassassin as a deamon (spamd), and insert something like:
|ifspamh example-com-isspam
in top of the users dot-qmail file ex. .qmail-example-com
then create .qmail-example-com-isspam and modify it to your needs
Try this
http://www.magma.com.ni/~jorge/spamassassin.html
If you have any grief let me know as I've got it running here from these
instructions
Dave
At 13:16 25/02/2003 +0100, Jasper Metselaar wrote:
Hi,
Is there someone who's using Spamassasin together with Qmail (Gerrit
Pape's packages)? I am
At 21:25 Uhr -0800 16.02.2003, Ted Deppner wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 08:02:45PM +0100, Christian Jaeger wrote:
- By default, qmail tries for a week to deliver a message before it
gives up. No warning whatsoever is sent to the sender before. Is
there no way to make it send a delay warning
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 08:02:45PM +0100, Christian Jaeger wrote:
- By default, qmail tries for a week to deliver a message before it
gives up. No warning whatsoever is sent to the sender before. Is
there no way to make it send a delay warning after 4 hours?
man qmailsend, look
been handed 10 individual
emails by qmail, so it will deliver 10 individual emails.
Mmm... but, for example, if it scanned it's queue every 30 seconds,
for example, it could then combine them together?
nope.
For example at www.exim.org you find the following paragraphs:
SMTP
that they were
originally the same email(*). postfix has been handed 10 individual
emails by qmail, so it will deliver 10 individual emails.
Mmm... but, for example, if it scanned it's queue every 30 seconds,
for example, it could then combine them together?
nope.
For example at www.exim.org
101 - 200 of 303 matches
Mail list logo
