Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Cazabon wrote:
> >
> > it might be "~vdomains/.qmail-foonet-default"
> I understand what you are talking about. The .qmail-default works for
> addresses containing minus signs, not plus signs. That's what I am talking
> about :-))
You can cha
Charles Cazabon wrote:
>
> Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the response. First, the users are all virtual so they can't
> > create their own aliases. I could create aliases for them, but I would
> > have to create one for each and every foobar style argument.
>
> Nope. `
Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the response. First, the users are all virtual so they can't
> create their own aliases. I could create aliases for them, but I would
> have to create one for each and every foobar style argument.
Nope. `man dot-qmail` for details. Hint: .q
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:38:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
> > scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
> > to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this imp
Hi,
I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this implemented in
qmail-ldap?
Regards,
Mike
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:38:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a user asking about the [EMAIL PROTECTED] addressing
> scheme. I guess this would allow the user to pass foobar as a argument
> to procmail, etc. It works in sendmail.. Is this implemented in
> qmail-ldap?
Yes, the
