On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0400, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >
> > Really have a look at the sources. You'll see the difference very fast.
> > There are strong rules for code on OpenBSD, style(9) is just a tiny excerpt.
> > Th
henning, all,
> > > It's a matter of fact that qmail isn't as reliable on Linux as on *BSD as it
> > > relies on some FFS semantics ext2fs just doen not fulfill.
> > If that is the case then there is a bug in qmail - the software should
> > be correct to the system underneath it, not apply semant
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:28:42PM +0100, François Philippo wrote:
> where could I find reference about
> hardware sizing for a mail server with qmail, courier. ??
os list:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/orientation.html#os
file systems:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems
anx
I am not sure what you are saying.
We do use the one server for POP and SMTPno need to re-route email to "good
server".
Ross
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Ross Cooney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 août 2001 14:16
> À : [EMAIL PROTE
août 2001 14:16
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: hardware sizing ?
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> > > I want to have a strong and fast mail server on redhat 7.1 which is
make
> >
> > "strong and fast mail
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> > > I want to have a strong and fast mail server on redhat 7.1 which is make
> >
> > "strong and fast mail server" and "redhat" in one sentence? Interesting.
>
> I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux an
On 09 Aug (10:54), Graham Leggett wrote:
> I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux and particularly anti Redhat (and
> pro BSD, which isn't a bad thing), but I'm wondering why - were you
> bitten by a Redhat server in a former life? :)
>
> Seriously - can you give details?
Linux evolves into a b
