Hello,
I've recently installed dbmail 1.1 on a Debian GNU/Linux machine
(woody), using PostgreSQL 7.2.1. Everything works fine, except that
Outlook 2002 SP2 (aka XP, German localization) shows "Sa 03.11.1979
00:00" "received" date for every single mail when used as an
IMAP client.
When looking a
has been fixed :-)
Bret Baptist heeft op vrijdag, 21 feb 2003 om 19:05 (Europe/Amsterdam)
het volgende geschreven:
Does anyone know if 1.1 fixes the pop3d delivery to incorrect users
problem.
The issue was that someone would get disconnected during a pop3
download,
then someone else would ge
Does anyone know if 1.1 fixes the pop3d delivery to incorrect users problem.
The issue was that someone would get disconnected during a pop3 download,
then someone else would get that some pop3d process and recieve the previous
persons email. The fix was to have each pop3d die after 1 connecti
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:20, shon wrote:
> i am assuming that the current cvs is 1.1? if not, where can i get it? and
> is the autoconf "configure" script working on rh7x?
>
> thanks,
> shon
If it isn't, I'd like to hear about it.
--
Ryan Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ADI Internet Solutions
dbmail.org has the CVS instructions on it.
I just installed the latest CVS on redhat 7.2, using the build.sh script
and it ran fine, except it barfed on the final handoff to
dbmail-install.sh. This I had to just run by hand.
-Micah
At 04:20 PM 2/19/2003 -0600, you wrote:
i am assuming that
i am assuming that the current cvs is 1.1? if not, where can i get it? and
is the autoconf "configure" script working on rh7x?
thanks,
shon
--
"power off einstein" - moe syzlak
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 09:33, Aaron Stone wrote:
> A quick grep shows... [snipped for interesting lines]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] dbmail]$ grep -r "1\.0" *
> buildtools/configure:VERSION=1.0
> buildtools/configure.in:AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(dbmail-smtp, 1.0)
> configure.in:AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(dbmail-smtp, 1.0)
A quick grep shows... [snipped for interesting lines]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] dbmail]$ grep -r "1\.0" *
buildtools/configure:VERSION=1.0
buildtools/configure.in:AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(dbmail-smtp, 1.0)
configure.in:AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(dbmail-smtp, 1.0)
VERSION:This is DBMAIL version 1.0
The VERSION file is cre
Hi all,
last change request for 1.1: updating the 'version' defines/tags in the
different files - where exactly is the version defined for automake?
We'll be releasing dbmail 1.1 shortly afterwards.
Furthermore: would anyone on this list be prepared to write an how-to
for installing postfix+
well it was scheduled for last thursday :-)
after checking all updates on the mailing list i think it is safe to
release 1.1 tomorrow; the 1.1 release will be the current CVS then.
regards roel
shon heeft op woensdag, 12 feb 2003 om 18:11 (Europe/Amsterdam) het
volgende geschreven:
is th
is this still scheduled for release tomorrow?
--
"power off einstein" - moe syzlak
On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 06:56, Paul J Stevens wrote:
> Ryan Butler wrote:
>
> >Here is another patch so that autoconf finds postgresql headers on
> >debian machines.
> >
> Shouldn't files like Makefile.in and configure and all the other files
> that are generated by automake
> and autoconf be remov
Ryan Butler wrote:
Here is another patch so that autoconf finds postgresql headers on
debian machines.
Shouldn't files like Makefile.in and configure and all the other files
that are generated by automake
and autoconf be removed from cvs? Just an idea, since I know this is
common practice in
Here is another patch so that autoconf finds postgresql headers on
debian machines.
--
Ryan Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ADI Internet Solutions
diff -ur dbmail/configure.in dbmail.working/configure.in
--- dbmail/configure.in Fri Sep 13 08:56:44 2002
+++ dbmail.working/configure.in Fri Feb 7 15:34
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 13:41, Ryan Butler wrote:
> Also caught that another patch was never applied, so I remade it for the
> current cvs as well, this can be applied after the patch I just sent, it
> makes it so you MUST specify either --with-mysql or --with-pgsql
>
> The current cvs will happily
Also caught that another patch was never applied, so I remade it for the
current cvs as well, this can be applied after the patch I just sent, it
makes it so you MUST specify either --with-mysql or --with-pgsql
The current cvs will happily let you just ./configure and not setup
either sql backend
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 12:59, Roel Rozendaal - IC&S wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we've decided to release dbmail 1.1 as soon as the autoconf is working.
> I have applied some patches to cvs recently (last wednesday) but i
> can't seem to get it working on our systems; seems like some
> dependencies are fail
Hi,
we've decided to release dbmail 1.1 as soon as the autoconf is working.
I have applied some patches to cvs recently (last wednesday) but i
can't seem to get it working on our systems; seems like some
dependencies are failing (missing object files). Does anyone have a
patch to make the cur
I don't know if anybody has already done this or not but be sure to change
the postgresql schema file. Currently you are specifying a DATETIME field
when it should be TIMESTAMP. DATETIME is not a valid postgresql field type.
:wq
Tim Uckun
US Investigations Services/Due Diligence
http://www.
things (eg. autoconf, maybe the auth hooks
Aaron's requesting), like you said here.
Original Message
From: Roel Rozendaal - IC&S
To: dbmail@dbmail.org
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] DBmail 1.1 release
Sent: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 17:57:41 +0100
> well that would seem sensible from a pure ve
On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 02:51, Roel Rozendaal - IC&S wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> from our point of view, dbmail 1.1 is needed as soon as possible since
> the 1.0 release does not compile straight away and suffers from severe
> pop-bugs. These problems seem to be solved now; we are planning to
> release
I absolutely agree that the LDAP authentication should not be included for
1.1, however if you can include the infrastructure changes that will make
it easier to patch in, I'd much appreciate it :-)
I've posted the changes again this week, but mostly as descriptions and
code, not specifically patc
well that would seem sensible from a pure version-number point of view
but the current cvs has no real new developments other than separate
authentication and QUOTA support. So this 1.1 release is more like a
1.0a bugfix release or however you would like to call it :-).
Our goal for the moment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
wouldn't it be better to release CVS current as 1.1rc1, and let us test
it. this way we don't run into the silly things that happened to 1.0 :)
- -ben
"Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends."
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Roel Rozendaal -
Hi all,
from our point of view, dbmail 1.1 is needed as soon as possible since
the 1.0 release does not compile straight away and suffers from severe
pop-bugs. These problems seem to be solved now; we are planning to
release the current CVS as dbmail 1.1 next thursday. I would ask you
all for
25 matches
Mail list logo
