At 10:14 AM 1/29/99 +0100, Frank D. Cringle wrote:
"Joe Garcia" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. :)
I've looked through the archives for this problem. I gather that there
is nothing I can do about it, but I want to be sure we're talking
about the same thing.
I am using qmail with a dial-up ISP who isn't running qmail. If I have
a message that has two different addresses in the "To:" field,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
Mark Carpenter writes:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
If qmail doesn't fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
using itNOW!
Not a good thing
-Original Message-
From: Mark Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple outgoing messages
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally
Mark Carpenter writes:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:04:06PM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote:
} Hey some of us youngins weren't around for the low bandwidth (modem) email
} days, which is what UUCP was created for. I couldn't even begin to tell you
} how to set up UUCP it my life depended on it. :) The funny part about
} this
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:21:39PM +, Mark Carpenter wrote:
I've looked through the archives for this problem. I gather that there
is nothing I can do about it, but I want to be sure we're talking
about the same thing.
I am using qmail with a dial-up ISP who isn't running qmail. If I
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
8---snip
splits it. Is there any way around this? We often send messages
with attachments and
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +, Mark Carpenter wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
In those situations in which you're
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if bandwidth is really at a premium at your site, you should
consider compressing your outgoing email.
That recalls something I've pondered lately. Why not implement a
QMQP-like protocol in which the "data" portion of the exchange is
compressed?
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +, Mark Carpenter wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
In those situations in which
cap writes:
consider compressing your outgoing email. In principle, it's possible
to write a program which collates messages out of a maildir (after
it's been put there by a wildcard smtproute delivering into the
maildir), compresses them, uploads them to your server, decompresses
Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
transferred over the phone line). Since with mini-qmail there's no local
queue,
they're still going to have to wait until the message is queued at
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:42:03PM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:04:20PM +, Mark Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +, Mark Carpenter wrote:
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 08:20:32PM -0600, Mate Wierdl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:42:03PM -0500, Chris Johnson wrote:
Now that I think of it, QMQP won't give your users the instant gratification
they're looking for (i.e. not having to wait for the entire message to be
transferred
17 matches
Mail list logo
