-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I know that our current solution is sub-optimal, but I'm not
> convinced that it's the only way to skin this cat. Moreover, I'm
> also not convinced that Maildir is the only effective way to make
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
>> Remember, this discussion all started because Postfix virtual host
>> delivery is broken on the trunk. The virtual_mailbox_maps feature
>> is a new one since we last looked at how to integrate Ma
At 1:29 PM -0400 9/28/06, John A. Martin wrote:
> Is in not possible to do Postfix virtual mailbox domains _without_
> maildir style delivery?
Probably, but I'm not sure it really buys us much of anything to have
separate mailboxes for each list, as opposed to a queue processing
mechanism tha
At 2:40 PM -0400 9/28/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I would ask them if their license is GPL compatible. IOW, do they
> believe we can combine GPL code with theirs? Better yet would be
> cases where that's actually been done before.
I'll send a note and ask.
> Remember, this discussion all sta
>>>>> "baw" == Barry Warsaw
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Developers] LTMP for incoming mail"
>>>>> Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:40:51 -0400
baw> I think John was asking about using virtual_mailbox_maps with
baw> delivery to mbox,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> Is there any license questions or issues that we would need to have
> answered or confirmed by the Sendmail Consortium? Or should we
> wait on that until we've heard back from the FSF?
I would
>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Developers] LTMP for incoming mail"
>>>>> Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:06:29 -0500
Brad> Maildir was not designed as an efficient queue-on-disk
Brad> strategy.
Is in not
Brad Knowles wrote:
> I think we're better off spending our resources working on trying to
> resolve the real bottleneck issues that we already know are present
> in our system as opposed to working on cool stuff that may or may not
> help but would require more overall changes to more parts of
At 10:09 AM -0400 9/28/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Does it have to be GPL? Is a Berkeley-type license not okay?
>
> GPL would be best, but Berkeley is probably okay. We'd probably
> want to get confirmation of that from the FSF. The key thing is
> that it has to be compatible with the GPL (a
--On 28 September 2006 08:21:05 -0500 Brad Knowles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What I find really intriguing about this approach is the ability to
>> reject some messages immediately, presumably allowing the MTA to
>> bounce them.
>
> Yup.
>
>>We could reject the message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 8:12 AM -0400 9/28/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> Does it have to be GPL? Is a Berkeley-type license not okay?
GPL would be best, but Berkeley is probably okay. We'd probably want
to get confirma
At 8:12 AM -0400 9/28/06, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> What I find really intriguing about this approach is the ability to
> reject some messages immediately, presumably allowing the MTA to
> bounce them.
Yup.
>We could reject the message then before it entered
> Mailman's incoming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've changed the subject to more accurately reflect this thread.
On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Nigel Metheringham 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
>>
13 matches
Mail list logo
