* I found you in a search and thought you could help. I am unable to get in
touch with the webmaster at qmail. If you can answer this question it would
be
greatly appreciated. Many thanks for your help. diane
We have been receiving mail from several people being sent under different
I found you in a search and thought you could help. I am unable to get in
touch with the webmaster at qmail. If you can answer this question it would be
greatly appreciated. Many thanks for your help. diane
"We have been receiving mail from several people being sent under
different screen
Hi,
Dorneles Treméa écrivait :
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1], but take a look at:
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=9506623list=513
Just looks like: oh yes, they are rules (say RFC) telling we should drive
on the right side of the road, but I discovered that for
Hi,
Dorneles Treméa écrivait :
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1], but take a look at:
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=9506623list=513
Just looks like: oh yes, they are rules (say RFC) telling we should drive
on the right side of the road, but I discovered that for
Hi people,
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
waaa... thanks a lot for those informations :-)
perhaps you know a qmailadmin for postfix?
(i searched a lot and find none, like for your qmail-bugs file :-P)
wait a moment!
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1],
Hi people,
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
waaa... thanks a lot for those informations :-)
perhaps you know a qmailadmin for postfix?
(i searched a lot and find none, like for your qmail-bugs file :-P)
wait a moment!
This is just 'more wood into fire'[1], but
On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 18:19, WebMaster wrote:
there is a .deb for proftpd and not for pureftpd?
(pureftpd is more secure than proftpd)
Speaking as one of the core team for ProFTPD I'd welcome another ftpd in
the distribution. I feel that picking to and sticking to a single
daemon for a given
WebMaster wrote:
(pureftpd is more secure than proftpd)
it s because we can read on pureftpd.org:
the number of root exploits found since the very first released
version is zero
we can t read things like that on postfix.org and proftpd.org
You definitly need to check out vsftpd then.
hello Joey,
You definitly need to check out vsftpd then. It's got very secure it
it's _name_, so it must be secure!
good joke :-)
i do not just read what is written on web sites...
is openbsd a secure distrib?
there is one alternative to proftpd in this distrib: pureftpd!
;-)
hello Bastian,
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
waaa... thanks a lot for those informations :-)
perhaps you know a qmailadmin for postfix?
(i searched a lot and find none, like for your qmail-bugs file :-P)
thanks in advance
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
Ivan,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
The .debs can be found at http://smarden.org/pape/Debian
I don't know about pureftpd so can't comment. =)
Regards.
Kourosh
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:19:50PM +0200,
WebMaster wrote:
hello,
when i posted this question to debian-user-french
i had no (good) answers.
perhaps somebody here could explain me why:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
The license, or lack thereof does not allow binary redistribution which
alters the way qmail is
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:30PM +0200, WebMaster wrote:
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
google - debian dfsg
Jesse
--
Jesus Climent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 02 October 2002 19:19, WebMaster wrote:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
djb knows it better then the rest of the globe so you may not redistribute
binaries of his free/open sw.
you have this package that migh help
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:30PM +0200, WebMaster wrote:
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
thanks a lot for all your answers
;-)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
lol, of course not :-P
(i searched vulnerabilies and exploits and fine none)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello withoutrealname,
WebMaster wrote:
well, the software is just about one year old, right?
so there probably aren't a lot of people who use it, so there aren't
lot of attacks.
just wait one and two years and there probably will be some bugs.
no
qmail...
i was talking about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralf Dreibrodt writes:
Hello withoutrealname,
WebMaster wrote:
well, the software is just about one year old, right?
so there probably aren't a lot of people who use it,
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 19:19:50 +0200,
WebMaster wrote:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
(qmail is more secure than postfix)
Redistribution terms for qmail prevent it from being packaged in binary
form whenever the binary is not the exact result of a compilation from
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 20:21:26 +0200,
jernej horvat wrote:
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
At least not for me. But a reward offered 5 years ago that not only
hasn't been awarded, but even has not even been asked for, maybe is a
proof of a piece of software without
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:57:55PM +0200, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 20:21:26 +0200,
jernej horvat wrote:
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
At least not for me. But a reward offered 5 years ago that not only
hasn't been awarded, but even
hello Joey,
You definitly need to check out vsftpd then. It's got very secure it
it's _name_, so it must be secure!
good joke :-)
i do not just read what is written on web sites...
is openbsd a secure distrib?
there is one alternative to proftpd in this distrib: pureftpd!
;-)
hello Bastian,
http://www-dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html
waaa... thanks a lot for those informations :-)
perhaps you know a qmailadmin for postfix?
(i searched a lot and find none, like for your qmail-bugs file :-P)
thanks in advance
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
WebMaster wrote:
hello,
when i posted this question to debian-user-french
i had no (good) answers.
perhaps somebody here could explain me why:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
The license, or lack thereof does not allow binary redistribution which
alters the way qmail is
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:30PM +0200, WebMaster wrote:
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
google - debian dfsg
Jesse
--
Jesus Climent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 02 October 2002 19:19, WebMaster wrote:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
djb knows it better then the rest of the globe so you may not redistribute
binaries of his free/open sw.
you have this package that migh help you:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:39:30PM +0200, WebMaster wrote:
hello Kourosh,
There are .debs for qmail. The debs are not official because
qmail apparently doesn't adhere to Debain Policy.
what do you mean by debian policy? (under gnu/gpl?)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
hello David,
if i wrote this:
(qmail is more secure than postfix)
it s because we can read on qmail.org:
In March 1997, I offered $500 to the first person to publish a
verifiable security hole in the latest version of qmail...
My offer still stands. Nobody has found any security holes in
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:09:33PM +0200, WebMaster wrote:
In March 1997, I offered $500 to the first person to publish a
verifiable security hole in the latest version of qmail...
My offer still stands. Nobody has found any security holes in qmail.
snip
it s because we can read on
thanks a lot for all your answers
;-)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
lol, of course not :-P
(i searched vulnerabilies and exploits and fine none)
Ivan Rambeau
FranceOnLine
hello Ralf,
well, the software is just about one year old, right?
so there probably aren't a lot of people who use it, so there aren't
lot of attacks.
just wait one and two years and there probably will be some bugs.
no
As of October 2001, more than 70 reachable IP addresses are
Hello withoutrealname,
WebMaster wrote:
well, the software is just about one year old, right?
so there probably aren't a lot of people who use it, so there aren't
lot of attacks.
just wait one and two years and there probably will be some bugs.
no
qmail...
i was talking about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralf Dreibrodt writes:
Hello withoutrealname,
WebMaster wrote:
well, the software is just about one year old, right?
so there probably aren't a lot of people who use it, so
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 19:19:50 +0200,
WebMaster wrote:
there is a .deb for postfix and not for qmail?
(qmail is more secure than postfix)
Redistribution terms for qmail prevent it from being packaged in binary
form whenever the binary is not the exact result of a compilation from
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 20:21:26 +0200,
jernej horvat wrote:
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
At least not for me. But a reward offered 5 years ago that not only
hasn't been awarded, but even has not even been asked for, maybe is a
proof of a piece of software without
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:57:55PM +0200, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
On Wednesday, 02 October 2002, at 20:21:26 +0200,
jernej horvat wrote:
so to you a reward is proof of security ? :-]
At least not for me. But a reward offered 5 years ago that not only
hasn't been awarded, but even
40 matches
Mail list logo
