"Richard Zuidhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I must change the machine of a mx. The first one is with qmail and the
>> second with exim.
>> Before the dns propagation, i would like that all the mail who still
>> arrive on the qmail machine will be redirect
William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I must change the machine of a mx. The first one is with qmail and the
> second with exim.
> Before the dns propagation, i would like that all the mail who still
> arrive on the qmail machine will be redirected to the new one. But i
> don't know qmail...
>
> Is
"Richard Zuidhof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I must change the machine of a mx. The first one is with qmail and the
>> second with exim.
>> Before the dns propagation, i would like that all the mail who still
>> arrive on the qmail machine will be redirect
William Dode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I must change the machine of a mx. The first one is with qmail and the
> second with exim.
> Before the dns propagation, i would like that all the mail who still
> arrive on the qmail machine will be redirected to the new one. But i
> don't know qmail...
>
> Is
Thomas GOIRAND wrote:
> Cool ! Don't forget to post here when it's done ! :)
I've started a WikiLearn page:
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/EmailVirtualDomains
Look it over, see what's wrong, misleading, or missing, and fix it. ;-)
(It is, after all, a wiki.)
regards,
Randy Kramer
--
> > > Can someone write here an easy understandable configuration for
> > > Postfix with virtual domains ? After some call for help here, none of
> > > you that know Posfix did it...
there is an easy understandable VIRTUAL_README in postfix docs yet (at least
in woody version), so it's not necessa
- Original Message -
From: "Ruth A. Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling list
manager for qmail and Domain Tech. Control ?)
> I'd li
Sorry about the attributions below -- I suspect they are incorrect -- I
didn't save some of the earlier posts in this thread, and didn't try
searching the archives.
Craig Sanders wrote:
Thomas GOIRAND wrote??:
> > Can someone write here an easy understandable configuration for
> > Postfix with v
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 03:29:04PM +0100, Thomas GOIRAND wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> >
> > 4. the configuration is truly bizarre.bernstein has his own
> > non-sta
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: qmail or postfix? (was: RE: What is the best mailling
Hi,
On Sat, 21.02.2004 at 00:23:26 +0100, Adam ENDRODI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the license prohibits distributing binary packages built
> from modified source, you must rely on other methods of
> installation. (On the other hand, once done, it's done for ever;
> see the next point).
Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our
mail relays. I've not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the
fact that many people who prefer postfix, also enjoy posting
unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] about qmail.
If anyone have properly gro
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've
> not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer
> postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[
[no cc:s necessary, thanks]
On Friday 20 February 2004 12.37, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
> > I guess the document was written years ago, when postfix did indeed lack
> > *some* of the features people did expect (one
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 19 February 2004 23.28, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> > > For example, I'd like comments on
> > > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.de
On Thursday 19 February 2004 23.28, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> > For example, I'd like comments on
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht
> >ml
>
> a collection of lies, half-truths, and mis
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:22:54PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> I take this to mean that there are no binaries to download from postifx.org
> itself - all binaries are made by integrators/vendors. This does not mean
> that making binaries is not allowed.
Binaries are, ind
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> For example, I'd like comments on
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
a collection of lies, half-truths, and mistruths.
the best that can be said about this document is that the aut
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.56, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> > http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.ht
> >ml
>
> says at the very bottom:
>
> Postfix is only available in source form,
> not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries.
> There is a list of
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:34:52PM +0100, Bj?rnar Bj?rgum Larsen wrote:
> [3] Craig Sanders wrote:
> > ps: qmail is a bad idea. postfix is better.
>
> Your conclusion may be right, but the arguments are missing. Would you please
> share?
search the archives of this list. MTA comparisons have b
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 11:34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail relays. I've
> not decided yet. However, I am surprised by the fact that many people who prefer
> postfix, also enjoy posting unqualified[0] statements[1][2][3] abou
On Thursday 19 February 2004 21.34, Bjørnar Bjørgum Larsen wrote:
> I am in the process of choosing between postfix and qmail for our mail
> relays. I've not decided yet.
Matter of taste - I find postfix' log files are orders of magnitude easier to
read than qmail's.
Also matter of taste - I cou
> http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Reviews/UnixMTSes/postfix.html
says at the very bottom:
Postfix is only available in source form,
not as precompiled or prepackaged binaries.
There is a list of FTP sites that hold the
source tarball on the official we
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://p
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 t
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
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.
The
-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-to d
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.
The
-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-to d
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:19:27AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> I have a mail server running a cluster of back-end stores (because no single
> server can handle the load) and Qmail-ldap for the front-end to send the
> message to the appropriate back-end machine.
>
> The problem is that Qm
I remember, that sendmail, exim, and others have queuing strategies,
that try to minimize the number of remote conections.
El lun, 25-11-2002 a las 07:00, Craig Sanders escribió:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:37:58PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > nope, because postfix has no way of knowing that the
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:33:57AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> El lun, 25-11-2002 a las 07:00, Craig Sanders escribi?:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:37:58PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > > nope, because postfix has no way of knowing that they were
> > > > originally the same email(*). postf
Hello!
I remember, that sendmail, exim, and others have queuing strategies,
that try to minimize the number of remote conections.
El lun, 25-11-2002 a las 07:00, Craig Sanders escribió:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:37:58PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > nope, because postfix has no way of knowing
Jason Lim writes:
> > recently there was a patch floating on the qmail list that patches
> > the way qmail-send runs. The result is having two processes instead,
> > and one performance bottleneck within qmail-send removed. I don't
> > recall the details, but the purported increase in performance
>
> recently there was a patch floating on the qmail list that patches
> the way qmail-send runs. The result is having two processes instead,
> and one performance bottleneck within qmail-send removed. I don't
> recall the details, but the purported increase in performance
> should be at least a fact
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 12:00:32AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Actually, I can't see how Postfix would be at all faster, since it
> > would still be sending individual emails on separate connections. In
> > fact, wouldn't it be slower, since Qmail was optimized specifically
> > for this?
>
> n
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:37:58PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > nope, because postfix has no way of knowing 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 scanne
> > > however, it won't solve the multiple-recipients-at-one-domain
> > > problem. if qmail relays individual messages via a postfix box,
> > > then the postfix box will have individual messages in it's queue -
> > > it can't recombine them into one message. i.e. the "damage" has
> > > already be
have a look at zmailer also! if you are limited to choose between the
three you quoted, then postfix is the answer. reasons in other posts
of this thread...
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have be
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:01:29PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > however, it won't solve the multiple-recipients-at-one-domain
> > problem. if qmail relays individual messages via a postfix box,
> > then the postfix box will have individual messages in it's queue -
> > it can't recombine them into o
Thanks for the input, Craig.
>
> it'll take the mail delivery load off your multi-purpose boxes, but
> won't result in much faster delivery (although you'll get some benefit
> simply because you're spreading the same load over more machines).
>
> however, it won't solve the multiple-recipients-at-
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:00:51PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> I don't want to spark a flame war or anything... but for purely
> outgoing mailing (sending emails), which mail package would be
> fastest?
if you're using VERP (Variable Envelope Return Path), postfix is a
little faster than qmail. if
Thanks, I'll try that.
Christofer
On 16 May 2002 15:02 CEST you wrote:
> I had this problem also and was unable to get the Courier-IMAP.deb to work
> so I marked it as "hold" and then just installed from source.
>
> Make sure you compile with vpopmail option turned on and in the
> configura
I had this problem also and was unable to get the Courier-IMAP.deb to work
so I marked it as "hold" and then just installed from source.
Make sure you compile with vpopmail option turned on and in the
configuration, turn off auth-daemon (as mentioned on the vpopmail mailing
list). I don't use
Thus spake Pedro Braga, on Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:10:16PM +0100:
> Hello,
> I've Debian 2.2 r3 on my servers and I use sendmail, but I want to try
> "qmail"! I've been on "http://www.qmail.org"; and the ".deb" link in the
> "top.html" page leads me to "top.html#200101270" instead of the file
Thus spake Pedro Braga, on Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 06:10:16PM +0100:
> Hello,
> I've Debian 2.2 r3 on my servers and I use sendmail, but I want to try
> "qmail"! I've been on "http://www.qmail.org"; and the ".deb" link in the
> "top.html" page leads me to "top.html#200101270" instead of the file
On qmail-systems you should use ezmlm.
Otherwise take a look at Mailman (http://www.list.org)
Martin
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote:
> Our mail environment runs several virtual domains on qmail+vpopmail. Now I
> need to setup mailing lists for a few of these domains.
>
> Any sugg
On qmail-systems you should use ezmlm.
Otherwise take a look at Mailman (http://www.list.org)
Martin
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote:
> Our mail environment runs several virtual domains on qmail+vpopmail. Now I
> need to setup mailing lists for a few of these domains.
>
> Any sug
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 at 16:51:01 +1000, andy wrote:
>
> /etc/qmail/rcpthosts
No.
> man qmail-smtpd
Yes :-) .
rcpthosts
Allowed RCPT domains. If rcpthosts is supplied,
qmail-smtpd will reject any envelope recipient
address with a domain no
/etc/qmail/rcpthosts
man qmail-smtpd
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Alex Borges wrote:
> Mhm cant seem to find a file for allowed relay-from hosts on qmail such
> as the one in sendmail i need (as everybody) to deny relaying from
> everywhere but a well defined set of
> ip's.
>
> Please, pret
The best qmail reference I ever found was http://www.lifewithqmail.com.
To install qmail on debian you should apt-get install qmail-src. Then run
build-qmail (or something close to that, apt will tell you what to do).
The build-qmail script adds the qmail users and groups and also builds
qmail.
The best qmail reference I ever found was http://www.lifewithqmail.com.
To install qmail on debian you should apt-get install qmail-src. Then run
build-qmail (or something close to that, apt will tell you what to do).
The build-qmail script adds the qmail users and groups and also builds
qmail.
Outlook ignores the SMTP spec by not enclosing the e-mail addresses in angle
brackets (although microsoft blames "older mail server systems"):
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q197/4/17.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
Djb did a workaround for this (stupid RFC ignorant clients) on qmail
ve
Outlook ignores the SMTP spec by not enclosing the e-mail addresses in angle
brackets (although microsoft blames "older mail server systems"):
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q197/4/17.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
Djb did a workaround for this (stupid RFC ignorant clients) on qmail
v
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:03:11PM +0200, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26
> seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes!
>
> This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is
> needed to colour a listing) needs
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:03:11PM +0200, Tomasz Papszun wrote:
> "/bin/ls | wc" has taken 1 (one) second. "ls | wc" lasted 3 minutes and 26
> seconds. Yes, near 3 and a half minutes!
>
> This is because "ls" with additional information (e.g. file type, which is
> needed to colour a listing) need
And on an Ultra-60 running Solaris 7 w/UFS:
bash-2.04$ time /bin/ls | wc
63975 63975 1971245
real0m2.213s
user0m1.160s
sys 0m0.890s
bash-2.04$ time ls | wc
63975 63975 1971253
real2m19.965s
user0m1.490s
sys 0m16.340s
bash-2.04$
Sped it up "just a little bit"
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20
> > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so
> > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedie
And on an Ultra-60 running Solaris 7 w/UFS:
bash-2.04$ time /bin/ls | wc
63975 63975 1971245
real0m2.213s
user0m1.160s
sys 0m0.890s
bash-2.04$ time ls | wc
63975 63975 1971253
real2m19.965s
user0m1.490s
sys 0m16.340s
bash-2.04$
Sped it up "just a little bit
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 at 13:25:17 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20
> > something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so
> > files. Doing "ls" now is far speedi
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20
> something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so
> files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier.
>
> I couldn't find any documentation anywhere stating this, so I
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:45:23AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> SO... by increasing conf-split to 97 (from the default of 20
> something afaik), each directory ends up only having a hundred or so
> files. Doing "ls" now is far speedier.
>
> I couldn't find any documentation anywhere stating this, so
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 06:26:50PM +0100, Guido Bozzetto wrote:
> >
> > Qmail is, by default, sending double-bounces to postmaster@server if the
>email-address at @server is incorrect and the address is invalid.
> >
> > Is there any way to disable double bounces for certain domains?
> >
> wit
Christofer Algotsson wrote:
>
> Hello list!
>
> Qmail is, by default, sending double-bounces to postmaster@server if the
>email-address at @server is incorrect and the address is invalid.
>
> Is there any way to disable double bounces for certain domains?
>
> Yours,
> Christofer
with .qmail-
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:10:30PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:48AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> >
> > Huh? Why would you need to deinstall at, mailx, logrotate and mail
> > readers in the first place?
>
> Well, you wouldn't *need* to, strictly speaking, but if y
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:10:30PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:48AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> >
> > Huh? Why would you need to deinstall at, mailx, logrotate and mail
> > readers in the first place?
>
> Well, you wouldn't *need* to, strictly speaking, but if
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:48AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> Huh? Why would you need to deinstall at, mailx, logrotate and mail
> readers in the first place?
Well, you wouldn't *need* to, strictly speaking, but if you remove
exim, those things that depend upon mail-transport-agent will w
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:12PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> > I haven't tried any of the web-based stuff, but have found that the
> > .debs of ucspi-tcp, ezmlm, rmlsmtpd, fastforward, and vchkpw have
> > all gone in flawlessly. Well, almost -- the
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 10:19:48AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> Huh? Why would you need to deinstall at, mailx, logrotate and mail
> readers in the first place?
Well, you wouldn't *need* to, strictly speaking, but if you remove
exim, those things that depend upon mail-transport-agent will
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:12PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> > I haven't tried any of the web-based stuff, but have found that the
> > .debs of ucspi-tcp, ezmlm, rmlsmtpd, fastforward, and vchkpw have
> > all gone in flawlessly. Well, almost -- th
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:12PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> I haven't tried any of the web-based stuff, but have found that the
> .debs of ucspi-tcp, ezmlm, rmlsmtpd, fastforward, and vchkpw have
> all gone in flawlessly. Well, almost -- there's still a niggling
> little problem where any other
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:12PM -0600, Art Sackett wrote:
> I haven't tried any of the web-based stuff, but have found that the
> .debs of ucspi-tcp, ezmlm, rmlsmtpd, fastforward, and vchkpw have
> all gone in flawlessly. Well, almost -- there's still a niggling
> little problem where any other
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:08:43PM -0700, Eric Jennings wrote:
> As for qmail, I attempted an install of qmail from dselect, and I had
> nothing but problems. After several days of pulling my hair out, I
> opted to download the qmail source from qmail.org and install from
> scratch.
The cur
umm, vpopmail first. I installed the latest version from source, and
it was seamless. I did not use a debian package to install it.
As for qmail, I attempted an install of qmail from dselect, and I had
nothing but problems. After several days of pulling my hair out, I
opted to download the q
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 03:08:43PM -0700, Eric Jennings wrote:
> As for qmail, I attempted an install of qmail from dselect, and I had
> nothing but problems. After several days of pulling my hair out, I
> opted to download the qmail source from qmail.org and install from
> scratch.
The cu
umm, vpopmail first. I installed the latest version from source, and
it was seamless. I did not use a debian package to install it.
As for qmail, I attempted an install of qmail from dselect, and I had
nothing but problems. After several days of pulling my hair out, I
opted to download the
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
| > Just wanted to know if there was a Debian way of installing qmail for a
| > large ISP environment :) I haven´t seemed to found any info on
| > partitioning recomendations, and such and such... Any ideas ?
|
| The lack of answers might be due to a IMHO
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
| > Just wanted to know if there was a Debian way of installing qmail for a
| > large ISP environment :) I haven´t seemed to found any info on
| > partitioning recomendations, and such and such... Any ideas ?
|
| The lack of answers might be due to a IMH
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:31:37AM +0200, Neil D. Roberts wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Just wanted to know if there was a Debian way of installing qmail for a
> large ISP environment :) I haven´t seemed to found any info on
> partitioning recomendations, and such and such... Any ideas ?
The lack of answers
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 10:31:37AM +0200, Neil D. Roberts wrote:
> Hi !
>
> Just wanted to know if there was a Debian way of installing qmail for a
> large ISP environment :) I haven´t seemed to found any info on
> partitioning recomendations, and such and such... Any ideas ?
The lack of answers
81 matches
Mail list logo
