-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> Other than that, we'd need a reliable standards-compliant LMTP server
>> written in Python (and no, smtpd.py- or Twisted-based versions are
>> not acceptable ;).
>
> Why no s
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Other than that, we'd need a reliable standards-compliant LMTP server
> written in Python (and no, smtpd.py- or Twisted-based versions are
> not acceptable ;).
Why no smtpd.py ? There is a MailmanProxy Object in the code which was
written by you, Barry. Any SMTP serve
On 9/28/06 1:11 AM, "Nigel Metheringham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 23:25 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
>> LMTP is probably the best and most native method for both sendmail
>> and postfix. I can't speak for other MTAs.
>
> Exim can do LMTP, over a pipe (ie fork/exec program
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 23:25 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> LMTP is probably the best and most native method for both sendmail
> and postfix. I can't speak for other MTAs.
Exim can do LMTP, over a pipe (ie fork/exec program), a socket or
TCP/IP.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [E
At 10:57 PM -0700 9/27/06, Carson Gaspar wrote:
>> Or is there some way I'm missing that would allow us to segregate
>> some domain traffic to Mailman's LMTP server and other traffic to
>> Postfix's standard transports? What about Sendmail?
>
> Shouldn't be an issue with postfix. From the def
--On Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:07 AM -0400 Barry Warsaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or is there some way I'm missing that would allow us to segregate
> some domain traffic to Mailman's LMTP server and other traffic to
> Postfix's standard transports? What about Sendmail?
Shouldn't be an i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 11:54 PM -0400 9/27/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> Looking at Postfix, what other options are readily available? I
>> suppose you could try to hook into the transport maps, but if I
>> understan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:15 AM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> --On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:54 PM -0400 Barry Warsaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Looking at Postfix, what other options are readily available? I
>> suppose
>> you could try to ho
At 11:56 PM -0400 9/27/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'm definitely not proposing to get rid of deliver to program,
> so at worst, Sendmail users will continue to use this method.
> Is there a better way to get the message from Sendmail into
> Mailman's incoming queue?
Well, sendmail does LMTP to
At 11:54 PM -0400 9/27/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Looking at Postfix, what other options are readily available? I
> suppose you could try to hook into the transport maps, but if I
> understand them correctly, you're still talking about forking a
> process per message.
Use LMTP instead. This
--On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:54 PM -0400 Barry Warsaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at Postfix, what other options are readily available? I suppose
> you could try to hook into the transport maps, but if I understand them
> correctly, you're still talking about forking a proce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:34 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:04 PM -0400 9/27/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> This appears to allow us to set up true virtual domains without
>> having to encode destination aliases. The trick though is that we
>> would us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 27, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 6:33 PM -0700 9/27/06, Carson Gaspar wrote:
>
>> I love the idea. A fork/exec per message always makes me
>> twitch... I have a
>> feeling it would also provide better fault-tolerance, especia
At 9:34 PM -0500 9/27/06, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Moreover, I'm not keen on Maildir. It makes a lot of trade-offs to
> try to get something that is NFS-safe, and I'm not convinced those
> trade-offs are worthwhile, especially not in a non-NFS environment.
One other problem with Maildir -- it th
At 6:33 PM -0700 9/27/06, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> I love the idea. A fork/exec per message always makes me twitch... I have a
> feeling it would also provide better fault-tolerance, especially in a
> replicated filesystem cluster, where you have clear atomic behaviour at
> your disposal.
I agr
At 3:04 PM -0400 9/27/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This appears to allow us to set up true virtual domains without
> having to encode destination aliases. The trick though is that we
> would use Maildir delivery for all incoming messages, something I'm
> keen on switching to for Mailman 2.2 anyw
--On Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:04 PM -0400 Barry Warsaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to know what you think about updating our Postfix virtual
> delivery hooks to use this technique, and about making Maildir
> delivery the default. We'd keep the old way around for MTAs that
> don'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 27, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Dale Newfield wrote:
> This of course begs the questions of how mailman distinguishes between
> the lists (what's the appropriate argument to the mailman binary, and
> whether there are any characters besides "." that are
Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the virtual file should indeed contain the hostname. The aliases
> file should not. These are two separate files, both of which are
> necessary.
I mostly agree with you, but your solution won't allow true virtual
hosting (having [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTEC
Tokio Kikuchi wrote:
> Postfix.py: got duplicate warning while creating virtual-mailman.
> Shouldn't we include hostname in aliases? Otherwise, true virtual
> hosting breaks.
the virtual file should indeed contain the hostname. The aliases file should
not. These are two
separate files, bot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Revision: 8041
> http://svn.sourceforge.net/mailman/?rev=8041&view=rev
> Author: bwarsaw
> Date: 2006-09-25 00:53:58 -0700 (Mon, 25 Sep 2006)
>
> Log Message:
> ---
> Another milestone: you can now post to lists. Converted the following to use
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
