Re: Proftpd+SSL/TLS!!!
Hi, Sorry if this has been said. I haven't been following the thread, but why not setup stunnel and run proftpd through that? I've done it here for mail and it works great (even with qmail and daemontools), so I see no reason why you couldn't do the same for FTP Dave At 14:32 1/08/2002 +0200, Jones Down wrote: Hi, > Does anyone knows Proftpd+SSL/TLS was official idea from Proftpd It´s something I absolutely don´t understand: the developers of proftpd are not supporting this, don´t ask me why, it´s a real problem... unfortunately I am no C-Coder, so I would do it myself...*sigh* ... proftpd has really nice features (mysql lookup e.g.), but NO SSL, and theres no ssl on the roadmap. > Anyone got ideas as to the nature/solution of this problem? ;-) Well you could do a apt-get install ftpd-ssl but then you do not have all that nice advanced features of proftpd, afaik no mysql-backend. Also there is one bsd-ftp that can be found here: http://bsdftpd-ssl.sc.ru/ it uses pam for authentication, so somehow also keeping your users in a mysql-db should be possible, but I didn´t get it to work. My alternative is to use ssh, there is a really beatiful win-prog to use scp, looks like mc, can be found here: http://winscp.vse.cz/eng/ but then again you should setup a chroot environment, because it´s still not possible to restrict access to a directory with ssh as tight as with some ftp-servers, because ssh needs some libraries and stuff, so there will be always more then just one upload-dir to see for the users. Also don´t forget, that with ssh you users have a full shell account, so building that jail should be done with real care. In most cases it´s more than you want to give them - what again makes me cry about missing ssl in proftpd :( generally I also really would be happy, if one of the "big boys" could tell us how to do it and which tools to setup, to get a secure ftpd. A nice solution would be to have mysql-backed virtual users for ease of administration. Have a nice day, Jones -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie: Is there a basic Debian-for-ISP HOWTO?
On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 04:23 PM, Marcin Sochacki wrote: IMO, exim and postfix are comparable and there's no huge difference which favours one of them. I use exim in all my installations, they are usually small to medium size, but even with big ones, I would consider exim as a good MTA. A large ISP in europe whom I used to work for uses Exim to relay mail for over 2 million customers. Its a fast MTA, usable in large to huge installations. I would consider Exim to be an excellent MTA. This nicest thing about Exim is that you don't have to frig around with the binary to get it to do nice things like LDAP. It just works out of the box, and scales up to millions of users without fuss. Just learn how to use the exim configuration file :) Unlike, say, qmail where you have to patch the source. (Not that qmail isn't good - it is excellent.) Nathan. -- Projecting what I want is always hard to know But when it comes between my sights I'll let the damage show I'd like to meet a space man, who's got it going on Sailing through the stars at night 'til our world is gone
Re: Maildirs in Debian
> Jeff, > please share the cons/pros with us The following document provides a good analysis of why Maildir was more appropriate to Courier IMAP's general audience and tasks (the SELECT.1 benchmarks are telling): http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/ To me, the differences can be summarised as a compromise between random access, speed and memory. On my server (I use Postfix and Courier IMAP), Maildir provides very fast random access to email, low memory usage, and no locking/access issues. On my desktop machine I use mbox because my usage patterns and requirements lean towards the use of massive, searchable mail folders and little interest in saving memory. Once the mailboxes are open, access is enormously fast. I have no serious locking issues, because it's just me and procmail writing to the mboxes. I don't think either system is ultimately (or religiously) the best, because they're appropriate for different uses. Our role as technology providers is to analyse these choices, rather than defend them. :-) - Jeff -- "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet, Spaceballs
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:53:24PM +1200, John Morton wrote: > > > > Maildir performance and scalability is dependant on the filesystem. If the > > filesystem your maildirs live on store small files efficiently, and can > > list > > and access files in directories filled with thousands of other small files, > > no problem (ie Reiserfs), but if not (ie ext2/3), performance will tend to > > suck. > > ext3 is extremely fast with directories with thousands of files in them. > > ext3: > $ time ls -al ~/mail/folders/systems/cur/ | wc -l >5602 > > real0m0.297s > user0m0.240s > sys 0m0.050s > > reiserfs: > $ time ls -al ~/mail/folders/systems/cur/ | wc -l >5584 > > real0m31.667s > user0m0.810s > sys 0m1.020s Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open all of them to read the mail headers: I'm using ext3 ATM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:...debian-bugs-closed$ time find -type f | wc -l 33933 find -type f 0.15s user 1.32s system 33% cpu 4.405 total wc -l 0.01s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 4.404 total [clear buffers && cache here] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:debian-bugs-closed$ time find -type f | xargs head > /dev/null find -type f0.17s user 1.38s system 1% cpu 1:46.14 total xargs head > /dev/null 1.02s user 5.59s system 6% cpu 1:47.62 total yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpyL6QoJN34k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:19, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > Jeff, > > please share the cons/pros with us > > The following document provides a good analysis of why Maildir was more > appropriate to Courier IMAP's general audience and tasks (the SELECT.1 > benchmarks are telling): > > http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/ My first encounter with the deficiencies of mbox was when running a mail server on an early 486 class machine with a 500M IDE hard drive. If a mbox exceeded about 5M in size (somewhere between 2M and 20M depending on how busy the server was at the time) then the pop server couldn't read it all before the client timed out on the "list" command and mail became inaccessable. If you are going to use mbox in any serious fashion you need one of the indexed versions (which aren't true mbox). -- I do not get viruses because I do not use MS software. If you use Outlook then please do not put my email address in your address-book so that WHEN you get a virus it won't use my address in the >From field.
Re: Proftpd+SSL/TLS!!!
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 at 17:43:43 +1200, Dave Watkins wrote: > > Sorry if this has been said. I haven't been following the thread, but why > not setup stunnel and run proftpd through that? I've done it here for mail > and it works great (even with qmail and daemontools), so I see no reason > why you couldn't do the same for FTP Unfortunately, FTP can't cooperate with stunnel. As FAQ says ( http://www.stunnel.org/faq/troubleshooting.html#ToC14 ): FTP over Stunnel won't work I just can't get ftp to work over Stunnel no matter how hard I try. Answer: Stunnel cannot be used for the FTP daemon because of the nature of the FTP protocol which utilizes multiple ports for data transfers. There are SSL aware FTP servers available. Alternitively you could use a different protocol. All versions of SSH include a program called scp which works like rcp. Recent versions of OpenSSH include a program called sftp which has an ftp-like feel. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Re: potato: upgrading php4- Can it be done?
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 11:50 PM, Wim Fournier wrote: Hi list, Will someone *please* explain how I can get a more recent version of php4 & modules than this on my Debian 2.2-based server: try: edit your /etc/apt/sources.list and set up a repos called deb-source using woody. do a apt-get update do a apt-get source php4 build then it will build the php4 from the woody repos from source to match your machine. This may cause problems when compiling because inconsistencies between potato and woody source build mechanisms You're right. It doesn't work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cd php4-4.1.2/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/php4-4.1.2$ debian/rules build dh_testdir make: dh_testdir: Command not found make: *** [configure-apache-stamp] Error 127 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/php4-4.1.2$ Does this mean it is not possible to upgrade PHP4 from Debian 2.2 installed version (4.0.3pl1) without upgrading the whole system to woody? That would be absurd! Or have I failed to install a package needed for the build? (dpkg-dev 1.6.15 is installed) Toby # dpkg -l |grep php4 ii php4 4.0.3pl1-0pota A server-side, HTML-embedded scripting langu ii php4-cgi 4.0.3pl1-0pota A server-side, HTML-embedded scripting langu ii php4-cgi-gd4.0.3pl1-0pota GD module for php4-cgi ii php4-cgi-mysql 4.0.3pl1-0pota MySQL module for php4-cgi ii php4-gd4.0.3pl1-0pota GD module for php4 ii php4-mysql 4.0.3pl1-0pota MySQL module for php4 *without* doing a full upgrade to woody? (this is a production server and I don't want to take any unnecessary risks) e.g. I want to install a PHP-based gallery ( http://gallery.menalto.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index ) and it wants "4.0.4pl1 or more recent". Whaddyaknow, it *specifically* refuses to install on 4.0.3pl1. Thanks. Toby -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] With kind regards, Wim Fournier
Re: Apache/PHP/FTP and user rights
On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 18:38, Phillip Baker wrote: > (oops, sent it directly to nicolas instead of the list - resent to the list > for other people's benefit) > > I resigned myself to using cgi-php, mainly because I didn't want users > scripts running as the webserver (somewhat of a security risk as then all > files readable by the webserver become readable to users php scripts), but > also to solve the problem of user's files not belonging to them. > > My install requires each user to have a copy of the interpreter in their own > website's cgi-bin, under /www/ or so used by each user, but I just credit them the extra quota, and really, > 2.4mb isnt so much these days. > > To change the path you're allowed to use suexec on (because I don't believe > you actually use /var/www - do you?) simply recompile it with the different > path, and drop it into apache's lib directory. Don't forget to back up your > new suexec when you upgrade apache, because apache will overwrite it again! > > If you need more detailed directives on recompiling suexec for an > alternative path let me know and I'll dig the info out. What is the performance hit for this (if any) ? and how much of a PITA is it ? Also, do you have any links ? I've never used suexec, are there any limits on the number of users or such ? Thanks for your time Shri
Performance Problems in secure network and Reconstruction required
Hello Debianer, I run a Class C network and I have reserver 16 IP's for a secure network I had in the network following: x.x.x.96 NW x.x.x.97 GW to Router x.x.x.98omega shttp apache x.x.x.99omega-dbpostgreSQL 2x7x36GB (RAID-1) Client-Database Radius x.x.x.100 omega-acc \ x.x.x.101 omega-acc1 \ x.x.x.102 omega-acc2| SSL-Access-Server 33/56/64/128k x.x.x.103 omega-acc3 / x.x.x.104 omega-acc4 / x.x.x.110 omega-backupHB Surestore 12000e x.x.x.111 BC Now, I was working for the french Governement and on the postgreSQL is a Database about Persons and an Video/Picture-Identification System for finding persons... omega is a PPro200 with 64 MByte and works quiet well omegadb is a quad PPro200 with 1024 MByte of memory and give me to much trouble, because the Video/Picture-Identification System need all resources... It give me only 6 MBit on a 3Com 3c905B-TX. Now I have splitted my Servers in smaller parts like: x.x.x.98omega shttp x.x.x.99omega-dbpostgreSQL 2x7x36GB Main-Database x.x.x.100 omega-pic ssl-nfs -> omega Stores about 280 GByte in JPEG's without compression up to 3072x2048/32 x.x.x.101 omega-accdb postgreSQL + Radius Client-Identification from Network and Access-Server x.x.x.102 omega-acc \ x.x.x.103 omega-acc1 \ x.x.x.104 omega-acc2| SSL-Zugangsserver 33/56/64/128k x.x.x.105 omega-acc3 / x.x.x.106 omega-acc4 / x.x.x.107 omega-ident Calculates the Video/Pics for Identification x.x.x.108 free x.x.x.109 free x.x.x.110 omega-backupHB Surestore 12000e Now my omega-db runs betwee 14 and 17 MBits, but thats nothing !!! I will get a 34 Mbit-Backbone next year in Strasbourg an I need more Power. I have created this Network with the postgreSQL-HOWTO and some other Informations on the Net, and it works, but I need some Tips for a reconstruction. Maybe for a better design. But I have not more than 13 IP's availlable. The other thing ist the Autentication on the Customer side, because it is Proxy with ssh-Tunneling and has directly nothing to do with the Customer, because the Customer install the server in its Network and use it like a Proxy, and its me, which choose the authentication. The same is, if the Customer contact my Network via Access-Server. What about LDPA and how does it work ? I do not understand, how to integrate it into my Database. Thanks in Advance Michelle Konzack
Re: General Apache-Question
Hello, Am 14:46 01/08/02 +0200 hat Jones Down geschrieben: > > >HI, >So if I want an ssl apache it´s ok to have package apache and >libapache-mod-ssl, right? YES >In other words, it´s redundant to have installed packages "apache" AND >"apache-ssl"? NO, you can have only apache OR apache-SSL >have a nica day, >Jones Have a nice night Michelle
Re: mail-config?
Hello! El jue, 01-08-2002 a las 22:44, Donovan Baarda escribió: ... > courier-ssl, courier-base, courier-authdaemon. If you follow all the > dependancies, courier-imap-ssl includes all the dependancies of uw-imapd > except libc-client-ssl2001, which is 913kB... ... > However, I still feel a little uneasy about running a seperate authdaemon > and serverdaemon just for pop/imap. ... If you worry about used space and running lots of different software consider qmail and pop3 to get mail off to the local network. It does also work very well with dial-up lines, usind maildirsmtp. You get all parts from one "provider" and the programs are astonishing small. Best regards, Jorge-León
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open > all of them to read the mail headers: True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes only a second or two with mutt, and opening it on reiserfs with mutt takes 30 seconds or more. ext3/maildir is a fast and reliable mail folder combo - the main reason not to go with it is simply if your IMAP/POP daemon, delivery agent or MUA doesn't support it, in my humble opinion. -- I trust Microsoft. I trust them to be spectacularly unable to get anything right, including and especially hard things like large-scale industrial espionage. Sure, they'll make clownish, clumsy stabs at it and fail in predictable, amusing and embarassing ways, and then do it all over again. And their victi^H^H users will not only forgive them but spend a lot of energy making up excuses for them. pgpzwueWffRPU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General Apache-Question
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 at 19:59:48 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 14:46 01/08/02 +0200 hat Jones Down geschrieben: [...] > >In other words, it´s redundant to have installed packages "apache" AND > >"apache-ssl"? > > NO, you can have only apache OR apache-SSL Do you mean that you can NOT have _both_ apache _and_ apache-ssl?? Of course you can. Package: apache Status: install ok installed Package: apache-ssl Status: install ok installed Tomek -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros.
Re: Maildirs in Debian
Nate Campi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes > only a second or two with mutt, and opening it on reiserfs with mutt > takes 30 seconds or more. ext3/maildir is a fast and reliable mail > folder combo It appears you're not the only one who noticed this, the passage below is taken from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-fs2.html You may also run into problems with code that performs bunches of stat() calls on large numbers of files. One application that seems to trigger this performance defect (which only exists with the ReiserFS implementation in 2.4 series kernels, and not 2.2 kernels) is the "mutt" mailer (see Resources) when it is used to read large maildir-style mailboxes. Apparently, mutt stats each mail file twice, which tends to hurt performance more than normal. The ReiserFS development team is aware of this particular problem and has identified its cause, and you should expect a solution to be included in ReiserFS 4, if not sooner. -- Adam Lazur, Cluster Monkey
Re: /root/ drwxr-xr-x?
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Phillip Baker wrote: Phillip, > If it's not a security risk, and will 'never be changed', why does debian > now allow you the option of setting the home directories (when created) to > be user readable only now, instead of setting 755 like it used to? I think youre looking for DIR_MODE= in /etc/adduser.conf Greetings, Richard. An OS is like swiss cheese, the bigger it is, the more holes you get!
Re: Apache/PHP/FTP and user rights
Hi Shri, > What is the performance hit for this (if any) ? and how much of a PITA > is it ? Also, do you have any links ? I've never used suexec, are there > any limits on the number of users or such ? I must admit I never did a performance comparison, but from a completely objective point of view it seems plenty fast on my dual p3 1GHz server :) I'm sure theres some performance hit in passing the data inbetween the webserver and PHP using CGI but the interpreter itself shouldn't really be much faster or slower as such, so its shouldn't be too bad. If by user limit if you mean the number of processes running at once, I've certainly not hit any problems to date. As someone pointed out, my individual copies of the PHP binary are unnecessary if you simply hard link to it and make the link belong to the user it should work (I believe) Debian has a php4-cgi (I think it's called) package, but I cant recall in particular what this sets up (if anything). For each virtualhost directive in httpd.conf I have: ScriptAlias /cgi-bin/ /www//cgi-bin/ User Group (same as username typically in debian) AddType application/x-httpd-php4-cgi .phtml .php4 .php .php3 Action application/x-httpd-php4-cgi /cgi-bin/.php And that works quite well. Naming their interpreter .php hides it from most ftp tools and suchlike and will help prevent them deleting it, although you could always remove write access as well as they shouldn't need to write to the interpreter :) You'll need to recompile suexec if your cgi-bins are outside of /var/www in order for it to work, and overwrite apache's copy. You'll also find suexec won't run files which are not chown'd to the right user and may also refuse to run php that isn't chmod 700. I don't know of any HOWTOs for this, I had to ask someone in the know about it and learnt that way. I do intend to write my own set of HOWTOs for things I've done which don't seem to be particularly well documented at some stage but I've simply not had the time so far :/ If you need a hand at any stage, let me know and I'll do my best to answer your questions. Regards, Phillip Baker LC Host Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /root/ drwxr-xr-x?
> I think youre looking for DIR_MODE= in /etc/adduser.conf Yes, but my point was that Debian now /asks/ about it on install. It used to assume 755 by default previously. Regards, Phillip Baker LC Host Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > > Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open > > all of them to read the mail headers: > > True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes > only a second or two with mutt, and opening it on reiserfs with mutt > takes 30 seconds or more. Opening debian-isp with a mere 6000 messages takes approximatly 30 seconds here. The NFS server is a P2 400, hd is some lvm scsi raid1, NFS client a P3 500 and the link is a Fast Ethernet (3com) with no load at all. I'm currently using ext3 on the server. I hoped to get some performance gain from switching to Maildir and it certainly has its advantages (locking) but I seriously consider going back to good old mbox which took perhaps 3 or 4 seconds to open. Opening debian-bugs-*, -devel or -user takes _minutes_, it is simply no longer fun. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpyLIFwb3tjO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Maildirs in Debian
Some would say, the solution would be to delete messages instead of hoarding all your mailing list email which is more than likely archived automatically by the list manager anyway (one would hope - I haven't actually checked, but I'm sure theres got to be an archive of the debian lists somewhere). There's no way I'd consider keeping more than about 30 messages on hand at any one time for any mailing list - I simply dont see the point in clogging my machine up ;) /Phil - Original Message - From: "Peter Palfrader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Maildirs in Debian On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Nate Campi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:53:32AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > > Please realize that it's not enough to stat them. Your MUA needs to open > > all of them to read the mail headers: > > True, not the best proof, but opening that mail folder on ext3 takes > only a second or two with mutt, and opening it on reiserfs with mutt > takes 30 seconds or more. Opening debian-isp with a mere 6000 messages takes approximatly 30 seconds here. The NFS server is a P2 400, hd is some lvm scsi raid1, NFS client a P3 500 and the link is a Fast Ethernet (3com) with no load at all. I'm currently using ext3 on the server. I hoped to get some performance gain from switching to Maildir and it certainly has its advantages (locking) but I seriously consider going back to good old mbox which took perhaps 3 or 4 seconds to open. Opening debian-bugs-*, -devel or -user takes _minutes_, it is simply no longer fun. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, 02 Aug 2002, Phillip Baker wrote: > Some would say, the solution would be to delete messages instead of hoarding > all your mailing list email which is more than likely archived automatically > by the list manager anyway (one would hope - I haven't actually checked, but > I'm sure theres got to be an archive of the debian lists somewhere). > > There's no way I'd consider keeping more than about 30 messages on hand at > any one time for any mailing list - I simply dont see the point in clogging > my machine up ;) I will store them away - when I find the time. Until then I expect my mail system to just handle it. At any rate, the point was that Maildir is not a silver bullet. mbox actually worked better. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ pgpKGpavXHbXD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Maildirs in Debian
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 11:17:42PM +0100, Phillip Baker wrote: > Some would say, the solution would be to delete messages instead of hoarding > all your mailing list email which is more than likely archived automatically > by the list manager anyway (one would hope - I haven't actually checked, but > I'm sure theres got to be an archive of the debian lists somewhere). > > There's no way I'd consider keeping more than about 30 messages on hand at > any one time for any mailing list - I simply dont see the point in clogging > my machine up ;) I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, but I think there's something you're overlooking - vacations. I was out of town last week, and my "systems" folder is the list where my SysAdmin team gets email. It receives anywhere from 500 to over 1000 email messages a day. In one week that's quite a lot of email. maildir helps quite a bit with large mail loads like this. -- "A crash is when your competitor's program dies. When your program dies, it is an 'idiosyncrasy'. Frequently, crashes are followed with a message like 'ID 02'. 'ID' is an abbreviation for idiosyncrasy and the number that follows indicates how many more months of testing the product should have had." -Guy Kawasaki pgpIkP5Xetyn1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Maildirs in Debian
Nate wrote: > I'm not trying to change your mind on anything, but I think there's > something you're overlooking - vacations. I was out of town last week, > and my "systems" folder is the list where my SysAdmin team gets email. > It receives anywhere from 500 to over 1000 email messages a day. In one > week that's quite a lot of email. maildir helps quite a bit with large > mail loads like this. Yes, but having a long wait when opening your folder a couple of times a year because you've been away on vacation is another thing entirely to willingly subjecting yourself once (or several times) a day to having to sit and wait for some mailing list folder to open just because you have every email since you joined the list in there still :) /Phil
Re:
I think I hear the need for a mySQL enabled mailbox system/mail reader. ;-) At 01:27 AM 8/3/02 +0100, Phillip Baker wrote: >Yes, but having a long wait when opening your folder a couple of times a >year >because you've been away on vacation is another thing entirely to willingly >subjecting yourself once (or several times) a day to having to sit and wait >for some mailing list folder to open just because you have every email since >you joined the list in there still :) -- REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=-- "...ne cede males" 0100
