Re: postfix seems unmaintained

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:30:47PM +0100, Stefan Pietsch wrote: > Dear LaMont, dear list, > is the postfix package still maintained? > There seems to be no activity since November 2014. My plans to work on this recently got derailed in dealing with a death in the family. As it currently sits, I'm

Re: postfix seems unmaintained

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 03:26:30PM -0200, Albino B Neto wrote: > > is the postfix package still maintained? > > > > There seems to be no activity since November 2014. > > really? > > https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix This package is from November 2014. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Desc

Re: postfix seems unmaintained

Albino B Neto wrote: > 2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch : >> is the postfix package still maintained? >> There seems to be no activity since November 2014. > really? > https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix Could you please be a little bit more verbose? cu Andreas -- `What a goo

Re: postfix seems unmaintained

On 09/12/15 18:26, Albino B Neto wrote: > 2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch : >> is the postfix package still maintained? >> >> There seems to be no activity since November 2014. > > really? > > https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix There is an RC bug since 14 November 2015, no ac

Re: postfix seems unmaintained

2015-12-09 12:30 GMT-02:00 Stefan Pietsch : > is the postfix package still maintained? > > There seems to be no activity since November 2014. really? https://packages.debian.org/jessie/postfix Albino

Re: postfix

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 04:39:45PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 13.03.2011 16:09, Павел пишет: > > Добрый день! > > Скажите пожалуйстаУ меня есть сайт, стоит на дебиан 6. Есть ли > > пакеты которые поддерживают нашу зону .рф Я так понял что postfix не > > поддерживает. Может есть или подскаж

Re: postfix

13.03.2011 16:09, Павел пишет: > Добрый день! > Скажите пожалуйстаУ меня есть сайт, стоит на дебиан 6. Есть ли > пакеты которые поддерживают нашу зону .рф Я так понял что postfix не > поддерживает. Может есть или подскажите как лучше быть? или мне надо > перейти на .ru .рф = .xn--p1ai . Это н

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Steve Langasek wrote: > > While I do prefer sendmail, I think there is one technical > > issue you guys are glossing over: The fact that we have an installed > > base of Exim, and documentation all over the place that assumes the > > Debian default is Exim, > > Such as? I haven't seen any

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Mon,18.May.09, 09:45:31, Josselin Mouette wrote: > To make a choice, I’d say we should have a look at security and memory > usage. Maybe also startup speed? Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description:

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le lundi 18 mai 2009 à 01:47 -0400, Micah Anderson a écrit : > I'm not sure why other distributions have decided to choose Postfix as > their default, but if I were to take a guess I would think that it is > because it is easier for new users to setup. But perhaps that is a > subjective assessment

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Manoj Srivastava writes: >> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Given that, I would say that churning the installation by making > a supermajority of sites change their MTA seems like a non-starter to > me. I do not see how changing the default MTA for f

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Luca Niccoli wrote: > 2009/5/7 Brian May : >> However, I very much dislike this Unix "feature" as it means mail can >> accumulate on any {user,system} account on any computer and not get >> noticed by the {user,system administrator}. > Not getting mail fr

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On 2009-05-09 22:20:47 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > According to popcon, only about 68% of Debian users have exim4 > installed, and 18% have postfix installed. I don't think that's much > of a lead for exim4, considering most of the exim4 installs are > probably due solely to its status as a defa

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:23:33AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > At which point, I begin to wonder if 'cron' and 'at' > cannot simply be told to use a log file if no MTA exists. > Alternatively, create a dummy-mta that converts MTA > requests into log files without all the mail headers. Log files

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

* Simon Josefsson , 2009-05-11, 15:06: What about msmtp? http://msmtp.sourceforge.net/ AFAIK msmtp does not support local mail delivery. I suspect that is part of the design goal of msmtp. Local mail delivery can be handled by other tools, can't it? Generally, it seems like a good idea to s

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Jakub Wilk writes: > * Simon Josefsson , 2009-05-11, 12:55: > +1 for ssmtp I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. >>> >>> Please not ssmtp. If I recall it correctly I found no way to get it

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

* Simon Josefsson , 2009-05-11, 12:55: +1 for ssmtp I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. Please not ssmtp. If I recall it correctly I found no way to get it to send mail to a exim-based smarthost vi

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Philipp Kern writes: > On 2009-05-11, Brian May wrote: >> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:31:07PM +0200, Jens Peter Secher wrote: >>> +1 for ssmtp >> I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were >> generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. > > Please not s

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On 2009-05-11, Brian May wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:31:07PM +0200, Jens Peter Secher wrote: >> +1 for ssmtp > I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were > generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. Please not ssmtp. If I recall it correctly

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Monday 11 May 2009 07:45:02 Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Changing defaults with a large installed base begs the > question: Why? Random churn for churns sake is not the answer. But upgrades would (should?) keep exim installed. A new default would only affect new installations. -- To

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sun, May 10 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > >> > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient >> >> technical advanta

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sun, May 10 2009, Miles Bader wrote: > Manoj Srivastava writes: >> and documentation all over the place that assumes the Debian >> default is Exim > > I think that's a weakness that should be addressed regardless of what > happens with the default. > > [Of course changing defaults is one way t

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 11:31:07PM +0200, Jens Peter Secher wrote: > +1 for ssmtp I found ssmtp couldn't cope with mail my various systems were generating, something about fixed maximum buffer lengths from memory. Not to mention . The fact that a "simple" MTA can h

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient technical > advantages of one over the other. Either postfix or exim4 meets our needs > for a default MTA, and both have packages that appear to be well-supported > by their maintainers an

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Manoj Srivastava writes: > and documentation all over the place that assumes the Debian > default is Exim I think that's a weakness that should be addressed regardless of what happens with the default. [Of course changing defaults is one way to force the issue a bit, but of course it doesn't sto

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:22:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient > >> technical advantages of one over the other. > > Just going by what

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: >> My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient >> technical advantages of one over the other. > > Just going by what MTAs -ctte members are running, it'd be 3, 2, 2 > (postfix, exim, and sendm

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, 09 May 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > My point is precisely that I don't think there are any salient > technical advantages of one over the other. Just going by what MTAs -ctte members are running, it'd be 3, 2, 2 (postfix, exim, and sendmail.) [Though I honestly wouldn't suggest sendmail a

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:55:11AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > > If this were put to the TC, I can't see any way that this would be anything > > more than a poll of the personal preferences of the members of the TC. If > > someone who's in a pos

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Peter Eisentraut [2009.05.09.1142 +0200]: > There are really two orthogonal things being discussed here: One question is > whether the default MTA should be a full or proper implementation versus a > tiny and limited implementation (or -- the latest idea -- none at all). The > othe

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Saturday 09 May 2009 02:35:18 Micah Anderson wrote: > Some people clearly want postfix as the default MTA in Debian (I do), > and some people dont want the default to change from Exim. There are > some people who want something else, but so far that something else has > not be technically satisf

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > If this were put to the TC, I can't see any way that this would be anything > more than a poll of the personal preferences of the members of the TC. If > someone who's in a position to make this decision decides they'd like to > delegate the decision

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:04:07AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Micah Anderson (mi...@debian.org): > > I think our problem is, how do we go about making this decision? > If the problem is well summarized (the wiki page you pointed), why not > make use of our Technical Committee for

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Quoting Micah Anderson (mi...@debian.org): > I think our problem is, how do we go about making this decision? If the problem is well summarized (the wiki page you pointed), why not make use of our Technical Committee for this? It certainly needs someone committing self to track down the issue

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

This discussion has happened before, many times. Some folks spent some time on a wiki page describing the different MTAs, would be worth reviewing for some background and comparison: http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA Some people clearly want postfix as the default MTA in Debian (I do), and some

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

2009/5/6 Josselin Mouette : > Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 23:29 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : >> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? > > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still won

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Hi, Christian Surchi wrote: > ssmpt is not able to handle a queue, so I imagine that it needs > necessarily a permanent connection with a smarthost... am I wrong? No, you're right. > I don't like this one for *any* machine. I wouldn't like this as the default debian setup. Risking losing mail

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Fri, 08 May 2009 08:12:35 +0300 Lars Wirzenius wrote: > pe, 2009-05-08 kello 11:43 +0800, Paul Wise kirjoitti: > > I find the notion of a "default MTA" to be silly. Most desktops or > > laptops or cellphones proably do not need an MTA. > > I'd agree, were it not for cron. At which point, I

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

pe, 2009-05-08 kello 11:43 +0800, Paul Wise kirjoitti: > I find the notion of a "default MTA" to be silly. Most desktops or > laptops or cellphones proably do not need an MTA. I'd agree, were it not for cron. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Harald Braumann wrote: > I never talked about Exim. I was just opposing the proposition, that > some esoteric mailer like nullsmtp or esmtp will become the default in > Debian. I find the notion of a "default MTA" to be silly. Most desktops or laptops or cellphone

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 13:28:33 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 13:23 +0200, Harald Braumann a écrit : > > No, please don't use an esoteric mailer. People who don't know and > > don't want to know about their local mailer don't need to know about > > Postfix' complexity. They

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07-05-2009 11:29, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 10:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a > écrit : >> I personally find postfix to be lighter and I consider it saner, more secure >> in theory, and much easier to configure for

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 10:35 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit : > I personally find postfix to be lighter and I consider it saner, more secure > in theory, and much easier to configure for complex tasks. From my personal experience, postfix makes it easier to do simple tasks, while exim

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, 07 May 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 13:23 +0200, Harald Braumann a écrit : > > No, please don't use an esoteric mailer. People who don't know and > > don't want to know about their local mailer don't need to know about > > Postfix' complexity. They can set up Postf

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Josselin Mouette [2009.05.07.1423 +0200]: > Both have a very good security track record, so I don’t think the design > alone justifies a possibly painful transition. Where's the pain? 0. figure out how to solve #508644 properly, and not only for default-mta, but default-sysl

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Harald Braumann wrote: On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:01:11 +0200 Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: No, most of users don't need a full MTA, but only a local MTA (usually only sendmail command, but ev. only a socket listening to localhost:25). SO I would propose a more simple mailer (esmtpd, nullmailer, ...)

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On May 07, Harald Braumann wrote: > No, please don't use an esoteric mailer. People who don't know and > don't want to know about their local mailer don't need to know about > Postfix' complexity. They can set up Postfix with a single debconf > questions to a minimal configuration. And people who

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 13:36 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit : > also sprach Josselin Mouette [2009.05.07.1328 +0200]: > > How is that an improvement over Exim? > > There are some of us that have a greater trust level into the > security and design of postfix. Both have a very good security track

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On 2009-05-07, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Josselin Mouette [2009.05.07.1328 +0200]: >> How is that an improvement over Exim? > There are some of us that have a greater trust level into the > security and design of postfix. DSA uses Exim on their boxes and even ftp-master runs a public

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Josselin Mouette [2009.05.07.1328 +0200]: > How is that an improvement over Exim? There are some of us that have a greater trust level into the security and design of postfix. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://d

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 13:23 +0200, Harald Braumann a écrit : > No, please don't use an esoteric mailer. People who don't know and > don't want to know about their local mailer don't need to know about > Postfix' complexity. They can set up Postfix with a single debconf > questions to a minimal con

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 08:01:11 +0200 Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: > Luk Claes wrote: > > Steve Langasek wrote: > >> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > >>> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645 > >>> +0200]: > > > >>> FWIW, Ubuntu did what I consider the right thing:

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Il giorno mer, 06/05/2009 alle 23.53 +0200, Josselin Mouette ha scritto: > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it > is not something like nullmailer or ssmtp. Is nullmailer actively upstream

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

2009/5/7 Brian May : > esmtp can do this, if you configure it to use procmail or something. I use and like esmtp, but I don't see how we could depend on it as default MTA if it has to deliver local mail: like you said there must be procmail installed and esmtp needs some configuration to use it.

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 03:24 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : > Because it's expected from a UNIX system to be able to deliver mail to > local mailboxes. And who cares a shit about system emails piling up in /var/mail? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Marco d'Itri wrote: > On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t >> use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it >> is not something like nullmailer or ssmtp. > Because it's expected from a UNIX sy

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Luk Claes wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 05:06:26PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: >>> also sprach Carsten Hey [2009.05.05.1645 +0200]: > >>> FWIW, Ubuntu did what I consider the right thing: >>> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/21235281/mdadm_2.6.7.1-1ubuntu4_2.6.7.1-1ubun

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Quoting Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org): > Where do we draw the line for “most situations”? If you want to do > serious email work, you’ll have to spend some time configuring your > exim/postfix and install extra components to run with it. If you don’t, > a trivial configuration will do the tri

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 03:24:13AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t > > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it > > is not something like nullmailer or s

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On May 06, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn???t > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it > is not something like nullmailer or ssmtp. Because it's expected from a UNIX system to be able to deliver mai

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:14:42AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2009.05.07.0002 +0200]: > > As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please > > go to something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On Thu, 07 May 2009, martin f krafft wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do not do queueing, > which will break the default assumption that I've seen almost > everywhere, which is that when sendmail returns, your email is > getting delivered, or you'll get a DSN. Nullmailer does.

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2009.05.07.0002 +0200]: > As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please > go to something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those do not do queueing, which will break the default assumption that I've seen alm

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le jeudi 07 mai 2009 à 00:01 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : > The default MTA if the one that should work easily for most situations IMHO. Where do we draw the line for “most situations”? If you want to do serious email work, you’ll have to spend some time configuring your exim/postfix and install ext

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On 11742 March 1977, Luk Claes wrote: > Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? As much as i like postfix and hate exim: no. If we change, please go to something like nullmailer|ssmtp|whateversimple. -- bye, Joerg joshk: okay. I've manned a Debian booth before. I n

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

also sprach Marco d'Itri [2009.05.06.2338 +0200]: > > Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? > Agreed, it's about time. http://doodle.com/exre35q7ckruyxpx -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debia

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 23:29 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : >> Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? > > Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t > use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

Le mercredi 06 mai 2009 à 23:29 +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : > Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? Given that the default configuration is extremely simplistic and doesn’t use a percent of either exim or postfix features, I still wonder why it is not something like nul

Re: postfix as default-mta? [Re: Bug#508644: new release goal default-mta?]

On May 06, Luk Claes wrote: > Maybe we should also consider changing the default MTA to postfix? Agreed, it's about time. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: Postfix as default MTA?

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 01:50:40PM +1200, Adrian Hall wrote: > probably better if you all go outside and get some fresh air and daylight > instead of playing with your neck beard and pony tail and worrying > needlessly about geeky stuff Probably better if you go outside, too, rather than playing

Re: Re: Postfix as default MTA?

probably better if you all go outside and get some fresh air and daylight instead of playing with your neck beard and pony tail and worrying needlessly about geeky stuff -- Checked for viruses by Gigantic Computing using AVG Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

> > I simply see no need to have them both installed at the same time. > > Make them conflict. (smtpd is intended to isolate sendmail on firewalls. > > Postfix does not need this since it already is modular...) > > valid point, but i wanted to use smtpd as an alternative transport to > postfix to

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

also sprach Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.08.1042 +0100]: > I simply see no need to have them both installed at the same time. > Make them conflict. (smtpd is intended to isolate sendmail on firewalls. > Postfix does not need this since it already is modular...) valid point, but i wan

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

also sprach Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.07.1859 +0100]: > That would be completely inconsistent with all other Postfix > installations out there and rather non-obvious when you try and look it > up in the common case where only Postfix is installed. [also answering dominik's post] oka

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:12:23PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > i don't know about another section... why not simply prefix all postfix > manpages with postfix-, so this one would be postfix-smtpd.8.gz That would be completely inconsistent with all other Postfix installations out there and rat

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.07.1705 +0100]: > smtpd in postfix is a private executable, so it has far less precedence than > the one in smtpd. On the other hand, the postfix manpages are crucial to > figure out what the hell a config option really does, so

Re: postfix/postfix-tls vs. smtpd bug

On Mon, 07 Jan 2002, martin f krafft wrote: > should i file this bug against both packages, or which one should get > precedence? i feel like postfix will be losing out... > > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/smtpd_2.0-4_i386.deb > trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man8/smtpd.8.gz