Email was sending and receiving just fine via pop prior to
this
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [vchkpw] ps
>
>
> > At 13:55 13/10/2002 +0200, Raboo Treed wrote:
> >
> > >Isn't it better to make vpopmail leave a pid file instead then?
> >
> > Sure, if Vpopmail
sence no one is using an unpatched qmail it shuldn't be hard to do
cause how will it do in a chroot enviroment?
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw]
At 13:55 13/10/2002 +0200, Raboo Treed wrote:
>Isn't it better to make vpopmail leave a pid file instead then?
Sure, if Vpopmail actually had a daemonized process, but it doesn't. "ps"
is used to find the pid of whatever Qmail process (qmail-send, qmails-smtpd
etc etc) that needs to be restar
At 01:55 PM 10/13/02 +0200, Raboo Treed wrote:
>Isn't it better to make vpopmail leave a pid file instead then?
No. ps output is always right, an old pid file could point to the wrong
process.
Rick
why does for example vadddomain and vdeldomain require /bin/ps ???
Hi Raboo Treed,
you wrote.
RT> why does for example vadddomain and vdeldomain require /bin/ps ???
So that it can HUP qmail?
Regards,
Gabriel
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] ps
> Hi Raboo Treed,
> you wrote.
>
> RT> why does for example vadddomain and vdeldomain require /bin/ps ???
>
> So that it can HUP qmail?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Gabriel
>
