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]
with
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
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 01:14, Russell Coker wrote:
I was under the impression that Sendmail also queues everything to disk.
How does it's queue operate then?
While the message is coming in, Sendmail buffers the message to memory,
optionally
- 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
I wrote:
Unfortunately, [Qmail's] not being maintained by its
author.
I've also used [PM]MDF and Smail. Their authors bailed, too.
I've used Slackware's and SuSE's Sendmail on personal systems,
but never for anything other people were depending on.
W.D. McKinney top-posted:
I know of several
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 in
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
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 01:14, Russell Coker wrote:
I was under the impression that Sendmail also queues everything to disk. How
does it's queue operate then?
While the message is coming in, Sendmail buffers the message to memory,
optionally piping the DATA portion to a socket (for milter
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.
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:19:51AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
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.
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
-04 at 07:43, 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.
Currently we use Sendmail. It's worked
. And it has no paralell in
security (AGES and AGES better than sendmail)
Sadly, its non free. You cannot distribute binaries of it, you can not
distribute it modified (have to distribute the patches separately). Even
if debian has very good packages for it, the license defeats the good
system
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
, I'd
like to change now. I use IMAP which I never tried under sendmail.
So, if the list gets the time, I'd like to know why not exim, with an eye towards
changing
(I'm currently building a replacement server, so now would be a good time to change if
necessary).
Rod
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43
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 or
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
but as they
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
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
), a sendmail
milter would pipe the message off to the load balancer, and the milter
would receive it back into the sendmail process. Sending a message out for
processing and dropping it back in the queue is really not the qmail
way. With qmail you might accept mail to a cluster of relays (eg via
dns round
Qmail was always blocking while it
I was under the impression that Sendmail also queues everything to disk. How
does it's queue operate then?
where the mailbox is). We chose OpenLDAP. At the time (1999), Qmail
did not have LDAP support (correct me if I'm wrong). Sendmail did.
Even if Qmail
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 a
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 05:45:04PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Markus Bajohr wrote:
I've installed Debian Woody 3.0 with the sendmail package.
It's all working, but I get a lot of messages, like:
Aug 12 13:22:35 fileserver sm-mta[2420]: STARTTLS=server: file
Hello:
I'm triying to use virtualusertable feature of
sendmail
I put in my sendmail.mc:
LOCAL_CONFIG
FEATURE(`nullclient', jupiter.dmz.technitrade.com)dnl
LOCAL_CONFIG
## Custom configurations below (will be preserved)
FEATURE(`virtusertable', `hash -o
/etc/mail/virtusertable.db')dnl
Thanks for all the help I received on this. Yes,
the X-Authentication-Warning reporting abuse of the
sendmail -f switch, went away after I added the following
line to submit.mc
FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl
and, of course, adding the trusted username (in my case,
apache, since that's what my server
Thanks for all the help I received on this. Yes,
the X-Authentication-Warning reporting abuse of the
sendmail -f switch, went away after I added the following
line to submit.mc
FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl
and, of course, adding the trusted username (in my case,
apache, since that's what my server
/trusted-users; added
FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl to /etc/mail/sendmail.mc, did make,
and restarted sendmail. (For testing, I also did not include
authwarnings as one of the privacy flags.)
But still, this pesky X-Authentication-Warning will not go away!
You also need to edit submit.mc to add
Well, I had already fooled around with submit.mc, but
on your suggestion I tried it again--but with no success.
I added the following line to submit.mc:
define(`confTRUSTED_USER', `johnsig')dnl
then did make, and from my johnsig shell, did the following:
/usr/sbin/sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED
...
Please be aware about the position -
- it dosen't work everywhere within that file!
Christian
-Original Message-
From: John Sigerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Is sendmail trusted-user feature broken
/trusted-users; added
FEATURE(`use_ct_file')dnl to /etc/mail/sendmail.mc, did make,
and restarted sendmail. (For testing, I also did not include
authwarnings as one of the privacy flags.)
But still, this pesky X-Authentication-Warning will not go away!
You also need to edit submit.mc to add
Well, I had already fooled around with submit.mc, but
on your suggestion I tried it again--but with no success.
I added the following line to submit.mc:
define(`confTRUSTED_USER', `johnsig')dnl
then did make, and from my johnsig shell, did the following:
/usr/sbin/sendmail [EMAIL PROTECTED
...
Please be aware about the position -
- it dosen't work everywhere within that file!
Christian
-Original Message-
From: John Sigerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:47 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Is sendmail trusted-user feature broken
I'm using Debian sendmail distribution 8.12.3-6.4 and
I have apache running as user apache and group apache.
I'm running a CGI program which calls sendmail using the
-f switch to set the sender's e-mail address (apache
is running a number of virtual servers, each with a
separate domain
I'm using Debian sendmail distribution 8.12.3-6.4 and
I have apache running as user apache and group apache.
I'm running a CGI program which calls sendmail using the
-f switch to set the sender's e-mail address (apache
is running a number of virtual servers, each with a
separate domain
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
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* a configuration
file...
I use postfix - easy to set up, does everything I want it to do, has good spam
control possibilities
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
someone now a good howto to do it or how to do it run???
Hi there,
i have a problem on my primary mail server. it runs debian woody and sendmail.
it is forwarding mails with the mailertable feature to our customers
mailservers. the customers are connected to our PoP via leased-lines.
here the error from the mail.log
Apr 9 15:06:11 mx1 sm-mta[2220
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I am trying to use sendmail + amavis-ng + amavis-ng-milter-helper + clamavd in
a mail server of 1635 users. It works, but after a while (about 10 minutes) I
see messages like that
Mar 18 17:09:21 drow sm-mta[30007
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
I am trying to use sendmail + amavis-ng + amavis-ng-milter-helper + clamavd in
a mail server of 1635 users. It works, but after a while (about 10 minutes) I
see messages like that
Mar 18 17:09:21 drow sm-mta[30007
Hello
I realize I can set up a catch all for each of the domains, but I'm
looking for something a little more elegant.
I think that the only way is this:
@thisdomain.com %1.thisdomain
@thatdomain.net %1.thatdomain
@theotherdomain.org %1.theotherdomain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is local user name
Quoting Eduard Ballester [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello
I realize I can set up a catch all for each of the domains, but I'm
looking for something a little more elegant.
Sorry to go of subject but
vserver is more elegant
http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc
It is RedHat based but
As far as I know, theres no way around this. By the way sendmail (and any
other MTA as well), anything that is listed in 'local-host-names' is
treated as a domain that will be accepted for any valid user.
The only way I can think of is mapping every user email to each user, not
with a catchall
.
this is what postfix, and i believe sendmail too, calls connection
caching, or re-using an existing SMTP connection to deliver a second
(or third or...) message, instead of closing the connection after
sending one message and opening new connections for subsequent messages.
tis isn't what Jason wanted, which
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
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
direct to
the postfix box. this may involve hacking the list manager to talk
SMTP rather thank fork /usr/sbin/sendmail, or it may involve
replacing /usr/sbin/sendmail with a wrapper script that talks SMTP.
either way, it's not too hard.
Nope... not running ezmlm at all, just a lot of CGIs
-case for
postfix.
there's a newer benchmark by the same guy with more details. it
compares postfix, qmail, exim, and sendmail:
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/postfix/bench2.html
there are other MTA benchmarks around. search on google if you want to
find more.
btw, on a linux box
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 factor
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
should
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
Sendmail, but then how does Postfix operate (similar/hybrid)? It hear
Postfix does something fancy in that regard that is a mix or something,
but since I'm no Postfix expert, perhaps someone knows more about this?
The reason I ask is that we have a number of Qmail servers right now
. if you're not using VERP, postfix is *MUCH*
faster than qmail.
I know people have complained about Qmail's way of sending emails...
in that it creates a connection for each email rather than bunching
them up like Sendmail, but then how does Postfix operate
(similar/hybrid)? It hear Postfix does
stuff more (Apache).
yep, it will get the mail off the qmail boxes ASAP, which will be some
improvement at least.
I was also hoping in some optimization of the actual mail sending as
well... such as what Sendmail or Postfix could offer in this case. If what
you say above is what will happen
. Wouldn't Postfix combine them in this situation?
nope. you might think of them as just one email, but by the time
postfix gets them they are multiple different emails.
I was also hoping in some optimization of the actual mail sending as
well... such as what Sendmail or Postfix could offer
Hi All
I have just run apt-get update then apt-get upgrade on one of my
production servers which upgraded sendmail and now it won't start.
The error is as follows,
snip
Start sendmail now? (Y/n)
Starting Mail Transport Agent: sendmail/usr/sbin/sendmail:
/lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 04:26:23PM +1100, Glenn Hocking wrote:
I have just run apt-get update then apt-get upgrade on one of my
production servers which upgraded sendmail and now it won't start.
The error is as follows,
snip
Start sendmail now? (Y/n)
Starting Mail Transport Agent
Hi All
I have just run apt-get update then apt-get upgrade on one of my
production servers which upgraded sendmail and now it won't start.
The error is as follows,
snip
Start sendmail now? (Y/n)
Starting Mail Transport Agent: sendmail/usr/sbin/sendmail:
/lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 04:26:23PM +1100, Glenn Hocking wrote:
I have just run apt-get update then apt-get upgrade on one of my
production servers which upgraded sendmail and now it won't start.
The error is as follows,
snip
Start sendmail now? (Y/n)
Starting Mail Transport Agent
Your default time zone is set to 'Australia/Brisbane'.
Local time is now: Sat Aug 17 01:58:12 EST 2002.
Universal Time is now: Fri Aug 16 15:58:12 UTC 2002.
When the local time is infact Fri Aug 16 10:59am
Sounds to me that the local time is wrong.
Get ntpdate and point it to a ntp
Your default time zone is set to 'Australia/Brisbane'.
Local time is now: Sat Aug 17 01:58:12 EST 2002.
Universal Time is now: Fri Aug 16 15:58:12 UTC 2002.
When the local time is infact Fri Aug 16 10:59am
Sounds to me that the local time is wrong.
Get ntpdate and point it to a ntp
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:14:12PM +0800, Mario Zuppini wrote:
I work for a small isp and we have just got a new mailserver up and
operational running Debian 3.0 w/ sendmail + qpopper etc. The box is
handling the loads fine all but for one problem, any mail that passes
through the server, 1
I have installed Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r0 (woody). I have updated it from
security and ftp.debian.org using apt-get.
I have found troubles installing sendmail 8.12.3-4
/usr/sbin/sendmailconfig: /usr/sbin/update-conf: No such file or
directory
Correct /etc/mail/sendmail.conf
On Thu, 2002-09-05 11:11:33 +0200, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
sendmail 8.12.2-5
When sending mail to the server, there is a 25 second delay before the sent
mail is accepted. It is due to the reverse DNS check. How to disable the
reverse DNS check?. Any
101 - 200 of 378 matches
Mail list logo
