On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, W B Hacker wrote:
From: W B Hacker w...@conducive.org
To: exim users exim-users@exim.org
Cc: Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:59:32
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim development
...
There is still a domainkeys lib in ports for that also - same
maintainer
Dennis Davis wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, W B Hacker wrote:
From: W B Hacker w...@conducive.org
To: exim users exim-users@exim.org
Cc: Ian Eiloart i...@sussex.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:59:32
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim development
...
There is still a domainkeys lib in ports
--On 5 October 2009 13:36:53 +0800 W B Hacker w...@conducive.org wrote:
Christian Balzer wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.. there is nothing remotely resembling the Qmail saga here...
While that is certainly true, the lack of fully native DKIM support (no
Ian Eiloart wrote:
*snip*
yes, but libdkim isn't.
But it is, and has been for a long time.
I should clarify: libdkim isn't distributed with exim 4.69.
Neither is openssl, which DKIM also needs.
Can't expect to ship *everything* with Exim.
It is
intended that it will be distributed
--On 5 October 2009 20:59:32 +0800 W B Hacker w...@conducive.org wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 5 October 2009 13:36:53 +0800 W B Hacker w...@conducive.org wrote:
Christian Balzer wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.. there is nothing remotely resembling the
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 5 October 2009 13:36:53 +0800 W B Hacker w...@conducive.org wrote:
Christian Balzer wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.. there is nothing remotely resembling the Qmail saga here...
While that is certainly true, the lack of fully native
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.. there is nothing remotely resembling the Qmail saga here...
While that is certainly true, the lack of fully native DKIM support (no
patching, binary packages from the distro of your choice) is starting to
hurt.
Lets not repeat the
Christian Balzer wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.. there is nothing remotely resembling the Qmail saga here...
While that is certainly true, the lack of fully native DKIM support (no
patching, binary packages from the distro of your choice) is starting to
hurt.
Hello all.
I just wandering - how Exim development is going on?
Last version is released 20 December 2007 - really too long time ago.
I just love Exim - it is great but it is seems to it will have a Qmail
story. :-( It is abandoned?
I will like to help with testing or something like this.
--
Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Hello all.
I just wandering - how Exim development is going on?
Last version is released 20 December 2007 - really too long time ago.
I just love Exim - it is great but it is seems to it will have a Qmail
story. :-( It is abandoned?
I will like to help with
Odhiambo wrote:
Tom Kistner posted here recently that he's working on that and when he's
done, we'll probably have Exim-4.70 or whatever version number it is given.
Great news!
I just want to say what new releases it is not only improvements but
indication what project is still alive. It is
Hello all!
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
--
Best regards,
Proskurin Kirill
--
## List details at
Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Hello all!
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
The guy who created Exim and developed most of the code for it
On 29/04/2009, Proskurin Kirill proskurin...@fxclub.org wrote:
Hello all!
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
Head over to the exim-dev list,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Mike Cardwell
exim-us...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Hello all!
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing
Odhiambo ワシントン wrote:
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
http://lists.exim.org/lurker/list/exim-dev.html
But is there anything critical
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Mike Cardwell
exim-us...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
Odhiambo ワシントン wrote:
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be
Odhiambo ワシントン wrote:
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
http://lists.exim.org/lurker/list/exim-dev.html
But is there anything critical that
--On 29 April 2009 11:56:37 +0100 Mike Cardwell
exim-us...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
I wouldn't say this is critical, but I feel that it is important
that DKIM is fully finished and included in the latest stable release
and in default distribution packages, without people having to roll
Mike Cardwell wrote:
Odhiambo ワシントン wrote:
We all know what Exim is great MTA. But were is now new releases of it
since 20.12.2007.
One question - why? Is Exim development stopped?
Were is so many thing what can be improved.
http://lists.exim.org/lurker/list/exim-dev.html
But is there
W B Hacker wrote:
I wouldn't say this is critical, but I feel that it is important
that DKIM is fully finished and included in the latest stable release
and in default distribution packages, without people having to roll
their own. A modern MUA should have this functionality by default.
W B Hacker wrote:
AFAICS, no pony has ever actually been delivered. Nor appeared on its
own. Nor even passed through.
Which leaves us with a mystery, does it not?
Actually, this time, a list member very kindly pointed me at
http://www.ckart.co.uk/horseshows/createapony.htm
--
## List
Marc Perkel wrote:
There's another issue here that supersedes the RFCs. If the recipient
server intends to reject the message then I agree. However if the
recipient server is a customer of mine and I know for sure based on the
response code that the rejection is in error, that it was
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:23 +0200, Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
My suggestion to Marc is to pony up some money and pay someone to teach
exim to do what he wants. It seems obvious that he isn't going to get
what he wants for free.
Rather frustratingly, at least three individuals have now offered a
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
There's another issue here that supersedes the RFCs. If the recipient
server intends to reject the message then I agree. However if the
recipient server is a customer of mine and I know for sure based on the
response code that the
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
There's another issue here that supersedes the RFCs. If the recipient
server intends to reject the message then I agree. However if the
recipient server is a customer of mine and I know for sure based on the
OK - my fault. I didn't know about $acl_verify_message untl Phil
Chambers just pointed it out to me. that will be a big step forward.
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list -
--On 6 December 2008 16:25:56 -0800 Marc Perkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:32 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
It seems to me that this supports Marc Perkel's claims. Note the use of
SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT, and the last sentence which talks
about correcting permanent errors.
And there's the wonderful thing about RFCs... this clause can be
--On 7 December 2008 18:05:35 +1100 Ted Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
It's hardly a solution in that it doesn't do what I want. I want to be
able to look at the reason for the 550 rejection. So if it's unknown
user it gets treated differently from relaying denied. If I
--On 6 December 2008 20:45:55 + Graeme Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 11:36 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I do use recipient callout and that is my work around. However there are
legitimate reasons not to always honor 5xy codes when you KNOW the
reason it is being
Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 7 December 2008 18:05:35 +1100 Ted Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
It's hardly a solution in that it doesn't do what I want. I want to be
able to look at the reason for the 550 rejection. So if it's unknown
user it gets treated
Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:32 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
It seems to me that this supports Marc Perkel's claims. Note the use of
SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT, and the last sentence which talks
about correcting permanent errors.
And there's the wonderful
Marc Perkel wrote:
Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:32 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
It seems to me that this supports Marc Perkel's claims. Note the use of
SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT, and the last sentence which talks
about correcting permanent errors.
And
On 8 Dec 2008, at 15:40, W B Hacker wrote:
AFAICS, no pony has ever actually been delivered. Nor appeared on its
own. Nor even passed through.
Which leaves us with a mystery, does it not?
http://fridge.ubuntu.com/files/no-pony-for-you.jpg
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL
Martin A. Brooks wrote:
W B Hacker wrote:
AFAICS, no pony has ever actually been delivered. Nor appeared on its
own. Nor even passed through.
Which leaves us with a mystery, does it not?
Actually, this time, a list member very kindly pointed me at
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Martin A. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I want the option of storing the email
I want a pony.
http://www.ckart.co.uk/horseshows/createapony.htm
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at
Hello, Ted.
Do you have any features or critical bugs in mind that require a new
release?
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and many company's have a Postfix to hold mail query
on it.
--
Best regards,
Proskurin Kirill
--
## List details at
Hi Proskurin
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 12:38 +0300, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and many company's have a Postfix to hold mail query
on it.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, here. Can you elaborate?
Graeme
--
## List details
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:54:42AM +, Graeme Fowler said:
Hi Proskurin
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 12:38 +0300, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and many company's have a Postfix to hold mail query
on it.
I'm not sure I understand
Quoting Marc Perkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Another feature - something I've asked for before - is the ability to
treat a 5xx error as a 4xx error. I know people have complained it
Adding to code to break the fundamentals email, no matter how innocent
the reason, isn't going to make it into
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on 5xy errors but I want
Quoting Marc Perkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It's hardly a solution in that it doesn't do what I want. I want to be
able to look at the reason for the 550 rejection. So if it's unknown
user it gets treated differently from relaying denied. If I had that
I could make a choice to refusing an
Quoting Graeme Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Write a script which permanently tails your logfile(s).
Ah, this is why i should read threads before posting replies :)
-Sndr.
--
| Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often.
| 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8 9BDB
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 22:06 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
It's hardly a solution in that it doesn't do what I want.
It is *a* solution, but it isn't a tailor-made ready-to-implement
syntactically correct solution designed to exactly fit your requirements
on your systems (about which we all have zero
Stephen Gran wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:54:42AM +, Graeme Fowler said:
Hi Proskurin
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 12:38 +0300, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and many company's have a Postfix to hold mail query
on it.
I'm not
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 02:06:09AM +1100, Ted Cooper said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:54:42AM +, Graeme Fowler said:
Hi Proskurin
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 12:38 +0300, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and
Ted Cooper wrote:
Stephen Gran wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:54:42AM +, Graeme Fowler said:
Hi Proskurin
On Sun, 2008-12-07 at 12:38 +0300, Proskurin Kirill wrote:
Yes - what about mail query processing rewrite?
It is really slow and many company's have a Postfix
Ted Cooper wrote:
Do you have any features or critical bugs in mind that require a new
release?
The only one I can think of is the updated SPF library. I was going to
look at it to see what changes were needed inside exim but work kept me
busy doing other things.
Have the dkim patches
Marc Sherman wrote:
Ted Cooper wrote:
Do you have any features or critical bugs in mind that require a new
release?
The only one I can think of is the updated SPF library. I was going to
look at it to see what changes were needed inside exim but work kept me
busy doing other things.
Have
Ted Cooper wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Anything new happening with Exim development? Any new versions with new
features in the works?
There are a number of bug fixes in the CVS as well as a few patches
needing to be thrown into the CVS, but nothing drastic. (Who has CVS
commit
Another feature - something I've asked for before - is the ability to
treat a 5xx error as a 4xx error. I know people have complained it is
dangerous but you can put all kinds of warnings in the docs about it.
Here's why.
I'm doing front end spam filtering. People point their MX to me and I
Marc wrote:
But sometimes what happens is that when the recipient's server is no
longer the lowest MX it forgets it is hosting the domain and starts
rejecting 550 all the email I'm forwarding with a relay denied
message
and it creates a bounce. I need to intercept that so that I can do
Marc
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 09:02 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
Another feature - something I've asked for before - is the ability to
treat a 5xx error as a 4xx error. I know people have complained it is
dangerous but you can put all kinds of warnings in the docs about it.
Here's why.
You
Marc Perkel wrote:
Another feature - something I've asked for before - is the ability to
treat a 5xx error as a 4xx error. I know people have complained it is
dangerous but you can put all kinds of warnings in the docs about it.
Here's why.
I can remember :P
I'm doing front end spam
Ted Cooper wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Another feature - something I've asked for before - is the ability to
treat a 5xx error as a 4xx error. I know people have complained it is
dangerous but you can put all kinds of warnings in the docs about it.
Here's why.
I can remember :P
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 11:36 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
I do use recipient callout and that is my work around. However there are
legitimate reasons not to always honor 5xy codes when you KNOW the
reason it is being rejected is a mistake.
No there are not. There may be instances where you KNOW
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on 5xy errors but I want the option of storing the email
for either
Marc wrote:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on 5xy errors but I want the option of storing the
Marc Perkel wrote:
I want the option of storing the email
for either inspection and troubleshooting or in the xase that the
customer fixes their server and wants the email.
I want a pony.
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 04:25:56PM -0800, Marc Perkel said:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on
Marc Perkel wrote:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on 5xy errors but I want the option of
Ted Cooper wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
You can quote all the rules you like but if a customer misconfigures
their server and in spite of their error I can store and then redeliver
the email that would otherwise have bounced then I am a hero. I don't
intent to retry on 5xy errors but I
Marc Perkel wrote:
It's hardly a solution in that it doesn't do what I want. I want to be
able to look at the reason for the 550 rejection. So if it's unknown
user it gets treated differently from relaying denied. If I had that
I could make a choice to refusing an email or accepting it and
Anything new happening with Exim development? Any new versions with new
features in the works?
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Marc Perkel wrote:
Anything new happening with Exim development? Any new versions with new
features in the works?
There are a number of bug fixes in the CVS as well as a few patches
needing to be thrown into the CVS, but nothing drastic. (Who has CVS
commit access to do that anyway?)
Exim
So - is Exim development still progressing? What's happening these days?
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Renaud Allard wrote:
I think it could also be very practical to put an anonymous cvs
repository as most other projects do. I don't know what others may think
of that, but it is just common practice.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Bill Moseley wrote [in another thread]:
Also, I
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:36:00AM +, Philip Hazel wrote:
Yes, it's still the case. The exim.org site is maintained by volunteers
(of which I am not one) and they are busy folk. Sorting out anonymous
cvs access just hasn't managed to get done yet. There is, however, a
nightly snapshot
Bill Moseley escribió:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 09:36:00AM +, Philip Hazel wrote:
Yes, it's still the case. The exim.org site is maintained by volunteers
(of which I am not one) and they are busy folk. Sorting out anonymous
cvs access just hasn't managed to get done yet. There is,
Philip Hazel wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
Is the dev version of 4.64 available for download?
A snapshot of the current source is taken nightly, and placed in
ftp://ftp.csx.cam.ac.uk/pub/software/email/exim/Testing/exim-snapshot.tar.bz2
I think it could also be very
71 matches
Mail list logo
