On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:43:03PM -0500, Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Quoth "Bill Andersen":
> > OK, I hate to go back "on list" with this, but since I got about
> > 30 replies, it's easier to go back to the list then to reply to each
> > of you. THANKS for all the replies though.
> >
> > Almost all
ishable from normal email with attachments.
All I can think of is setting up a colocated MX where bandwidth
is cheap and filtering all mail there, then accepting only from
that IP. Hmmm, is there a mailscrubber.com ASP that provides that
service reliably?
cfm
--
Ch
est AND most
efficient. The only complexity would be triggering that rebuild on db
change. Not so easy with mySQL but maybe your mechanism for updating
could do it.
At least it solves MY problem; that will work nicely for us. :-)
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher
n them because
I once had a mailing list that sent them unquoted, backgrounded itself,
resent them because it did not complete, ad infinitem until I caught it
and fixed the quoting. In a nutshell the **shell** was the issue,
not qmail.
cfm
>
> I'm not necessarily trying to correct
Just this past week I've been seeing some `hanging' again.
We use cucipop, qmail, and mbox on shell accounts (pop
only accounts use maildir and I've not seen hanging there).
It does **seem** to relate to mime/multipart but the reports
are so rare I can't tell if they're even real.
> >> have
We use elm and qmail.
Elm 2.4ME+ PL43 (25), of Jun, 1998
This is what elm does with the tmp file in /tmp for me (cfm):
mbox.Mailbox-cfm
We set
MAIL_FILE Mailbox
in login.defs (for linux PAM)
but you can also export MAIL=/full/path/to/Mailbox
Works smooth as a smelt.
cfm
>
>
ezmlm?
Thanks,
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078 (MTRF 3-5pm)http://www.maine.com/
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 02:19:42PM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> "Lee Trotter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have been watching this list for a few weeks now. And the people on
> >here are the most un-helpful people I have seen.
>
> I don't think you're being fair. Even people who "rudely" t
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:51:56PM -0600, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Ian Shaughnessy on Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:00 PDT:
>
> > One of my users has been signed up to a number of mailing lists, and he is
> > now unable to access his Maildir/cur or Maildir/new directories. I as
> > root can not
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 03:35:08PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was asked to do some research on "running instructions contained
> in a mail body", that is, users send their requests by mails and
> the server parse the messages and then run the instructions
> assigned by the requesters in
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:30:09PM -0400, Alex Pennace wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:00:58PM -0700, Duane L. wrote:
> > [...] Had a user complaining that an important
> > email never arrived. Poking around in their home directory I found this
> > file ...
> > -rw--- 1 root users
il servers that I run, I don't
> have trouble sending email to sherwin.com...so their argument has
> some validity.
When I started as ISP 7 years ago a local BBS operator shared
with me his favorite like "It only happens on your system|modem|
server so it MUST be your problem." Y
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:47:53AM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> If running a virus scanner would be free (i.e. does not reduce security,
> does not eat up CPU time on the email server, does not use memory, does
> not cost time and money to maintain) then I would not be against it.
Antivirus
nal selection of independant, non-personalized
messages, batching will make sense - but that's not "personalized".
As usual, a clear statement of the situation will help.
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Commun
ll me what this is and suggest the best approach to stopping
this sort of SPAM?
Thanks, cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039
1.207.657.5078
er the place. We're running
qmail-1.03 with the SPAMCONTROL patch. Can anyone help me
with this please?
Thanks,
cfm
>From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 01 18:30:53 2001
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 6035 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 18:30:52 -
ing or
has anyone else seen it?
Best,
cfm
>From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Jan 01 19:32:31 2001
Return-Path: <>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 6104 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2001 19:32:30 -
Received: from gray.maine.com (204.176.0.13)
by sooshi.maine.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 200
t; something.
Yeah, I have that problem too. The qmail environment is so reliable
I forget how it goes together and where are the sources. :-)
Thank you to everyone that made that possible.
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MaineStreet Co
sometimes different sometimes not. Tell your salespeople that
the net is run geeks like me. :-) Don't even get into clock skew
and why ntp died on that machine.
> UTC is good. People requesting otherwise in their Received: header are
> confused.
!meaningful cookie
cfm
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 03:03:20PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote:
>
> i am having the *exact* same problem. it only happens with mails
> originating outside our domain, and tehre's no rhyme or reason to it.
> our logs do show
>
> seems to happen more often with hotmail and yahoo. it's also hap
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 04:00:29PM -0500, Daniel Kelley wrote:
>
> aha! we use cucipop as well. there's only one 'error locking' message in
> the logs, but there are plenty of these:
>
> cucipop[20914]: Invalid command capa - -
>
> i've tried to figure out what this means, but i have no clue.
y notice them on mail coming from
> list.cr.yp.to -- not from other ezmlm-managed lists.
>
> Perhaps djb himself could comment on whether the network saturation at
> UIC is causing duplicates?
cfm
--
Christopher F. Miller, Publisher
22 matches
Mail list logo
