Off list, I've been pointed to https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/releases
I had been looking at https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/releases
Sorry for the noise.
—
Dan Langille
d...@biglist.com
On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Any chance of a new r
Hello,
Any chance of a new release? I ask because I encountered this bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693179
which is fixed by this patch:
https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/commit/1bfebd0bfd5e86f8ed4f770ba54846dc9d18e0ab
which went in about a year ago.
Four years
e (the old
"thundering herd" problem).
>>> The subversion version is quite stable; indeed it's almost certainly
>>> better than the last release.
>>
>> There's a message there ... :-)
>
> "quite stable" means different things to dif
2008/6/27 Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> qpsmtpd-forkserver is our closest equivalent. I don't know if
>> anyone's been running it under pperl or PersistentPerl for a while.
>
> Actually qpsmtpd-prefork is closer.
Ok, great, thanks. Is qpsmtpd-async not faster? Which one would you
guys rec
e's been running it under pperl or PersistentPerl for a while.
Actually qpsmtpd-prefork is closer.
>> I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is
>> the CVS version stable enough for production?
>
> The subversion version is quite stable; indeed it
pperl, but I've never used it.
qpsmtpd-forkserver is our closest equivalent. I don't know if
anyone's been running it under pperl or PersistentPerl for a while.
I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is
the CVS version stable enough for producti
sed it.
I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is
the CVS version stable enough for production?
Thanks
Dale
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Sydney Bogaert wrote:
>>
>>> The problem I think is that this config is found in the .tar.gz file,
>>> the file that most people download and install as is...
>>
>> Yeah, I'm thinking of rolling a 0.41 with the change
Michael Holzt wrote:
>> Is it perhaps time for another release?
>
> Absolutely. 0.32 is now over 1 year old and my impression is that
> it is lacking lots of cool innovations done since then.
I run from svn so I get all the cool innovations! :)
R.
> Is it perhaps time for another release?
Absolutely. 0.32 is now over 1 year old and my impression is that
it is lacking lots of cool innovations done since then.
Regards
Michael
--
It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks
On Apr 21, 2007, at 7:12 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
Is it perhaps time for another release?
Yes!
Or is there a TODO list outstanding?
There are a few issues in the google issue tracker that we ought to
fix -- but it's been so long that I suppose it's more important to
get it out and m
Hi all
I've just been reviewing the last bunch of SVN changes.
Is it perhaps time for another release? Or is there a TODO list
outstanding?
Regards
James Turnbull
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
12 matches
Mail list logo