On Fri, 01 Apr 2011, Mark Hymers wrote:
> On Tue, 29, Mar, 2011 at 08:14:21AM -0700, Don Armstrong spoke thus..
> > What is the current status of this?
>
> I've just checked the packages, and given the constraints of #510415, I
> have accepted netqmail, dot-forward, fas
plements SMTP time delays to force the
spammer to slow down, thank you very much. I even endorse greylisting
(with a whitelist) nowadays, but you'll never see me endorsing QMail
until it is patched.
> Concerning the delayed delivery notifications, there's an efficient way
> to immedi
This one time, at band camp, Gerrit Pape said:
> Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP
> conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient
> addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently.
That is so stunningly wrong an argument I can
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:05:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce
> problem?
no, or maybe: not yet; they gave notice of including that, but nothing
happened yet
http://marc.info/?l=qmail&m=120275739720434&w=2
* Gerrit Pape:
> Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of
> bugs.
Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce
problem?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending
> in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and
> pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post
Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscat
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
> > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
>
> I download
Bjørn Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
>> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
> You are aware of upstream'
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
> into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and
looked briefly at it, to s
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
You are aware of upstream's attitude towards security holes? There are
lots of assumption
ssues. But this
>> is certainly not restricted to qmail (Bernstein's DNS code suffers
>> from that to a higher degree, and it's in the archive).
>
> Well, do you think the size of ipv4 addresses ever will change? :)
Ask the poor guys who wrote IPv6 patches for djbdns.
-
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Personally, I'm more concerned about manual constant propagation in
> some parts of the code base (like using the integer literal 4 for the
> size of an IPv4 address), and similar coding style issues. But this
> is certainly
* Gerrit Pape:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Joerg Jaspert:
>> > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
>> > archive:
>> >
>> > Qmail is an MTA and as such should fo
on mail
http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2008/09/msg00055.html
Additionally to addressing technical issues, I took the advise from
ftpmasters and reconsidered re-uploading the packages. After two
months, and receiving several mails from users asking about the progress
of the inclusion into Deb
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joerg Jaspert:
> > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
> > archive:
> >
> > Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section
> >
David Kaufman wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
>
>> Neil Williams wrote:
>>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
>>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.
>> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen a
* David Kaufman:
> The Security Team has responded that it has no objections to adding
> qmail to Lenny.
Just to clarify, there are no objections with regard to security
support. This does NOT mean that we want to see qmail in the archive
while there are other open issues (as outlined
* Joerg Jaspert:
>>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
>>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
>> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
>> have a problem with qma
* Joerg Jaspert:
> On 11583 March 1977, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>
> As i got asked for the complete text of the rejection mail, as the
> thread start only had a partial quote, here it is.
Thanks!
> First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the
> archiv
urity, release, QA.
>
> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
>
> Cheers,
> Moritz
Thanks, Moritz! That's great news from the Security Team.
So, the Security Team has no
"Neil Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we
>>> (as in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of
>>> the opinion that qmail should die,
in Debian - security, release, QA.
>
> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
>
> Cheers,
> Moritz
Thanks, Moritz! That's great news from the Security Team.
So, the Securit
Hi Moritz,
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
> > various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.
>
> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
> have a pro
servers.
Md> Maybe having an official well-maintained package (and the one you
Md> evalued clearly is not) is the least evil.
[speaking as Plesk ex-developer] It won't help, Plesk's qmail is patched
in various ways, including Plesk-specific patches, so version
On Nov 30, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to
> work in the manner expected of a modern MTA. Given this, the fact that this
> means there is also no upstream security support, and the fact that D
Am 2008-11-28 15:42:34, schrieb William Pitcock:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> being, etc
etqmail_1.06-1_powerpc.changes REJECTED
To: Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:19:30 +0200
Hi Maintainer,
rejected, for various reasons (this mail applies to all of the various
qmail and qmail related packages currently in NEW, na
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>
> For completeness sake: QA does not thow out orphanes packages just for
> being orphaned. If they are orphaned, RC-buggy, hardly used, and
> alternatives are available, only then they are candidates for removal.
You missed Debconf8's BoF I guess.
>
> Bast regards,
> Bas
Raphael Geissert dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:05:23PM -0600]:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
> > solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
> > playground to publish their in-progress p
William Pitcock dijo [Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:57:37PM -0600]:
> (...)
> What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
> will be
Miriam Ruiz dijo [Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:37:16AM +0100]:
> > DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
> > supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
>
> I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
> made for my own usage but I don't have time
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (29/11/2008):
> Or
> mentors.debian.net ?
Source-only.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-11-29 13:22]:
>
> >> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
> >> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
> > We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen
On 2008-11-29, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
>>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
>> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and
>> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
>> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
> We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
> have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
Are you
Hi Paul!
You wrote:
> basically the Debian answer to Ubuntu's universe. The main reason I
> started thinking about this was that I got annoyed when QA folks chuck
> orphaned packages (i've changed my mind about this since though).
For completeness sake: QA does not thow out orphanes packages jus
Neil Williams wrote:
> It isn't just about choosing not to install it, it causes work for the
> various teams in Debian - security, release, QA.=20
We've discussed this at the Security Team meeting in Essen and we don't
have a problem with qmail being included in Lenny.
C
William Pitcock wrote:
[...]
>
> The ideal way to handle this would be to have a single repository. PPAs
> solve a different problem, which is giving contributors and developers a
> playground to publish their in-progress packages. This is more about
> getting packages to users in an efficient way
> > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> > being, etc.
>
> debian-unofficial.org
Or, why not
apt-get.org ?
Or
mentors.debian.net ?
Honnestly, I fail to see clearly the benefit of it, apart from more confusion
and new issues..
Romain
-
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 02:19 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
> > What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> > overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> > that they under
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:28:58 +0900 Paul Wise wrote:
> Infrastructure should be similarly supported and hosted by mainly
> non-DDs; buildds, porting machines and so on.
Actually I was thinking about something similar yesterday.
Asa non-DD it is very hard to reproduce bugs from arches you don't own
2008/11/29 Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> DDs would be discouraged from participating since they should be
> supporting packages/etc within Debian instead.
I'm not exactly sure about this. I have quite a lot of packages that I
made for my own usage but I don't have time or interest in maintaini
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM, William Pitcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian prop
Hi,
On Saturday 29 November 2008 01:57, William Pitcock wrote:
> What I propose is something more along the lines of Gentoo's "sunrise"
> overlay... a repository that anyone can get upload access to provided
> that they understand basic Debian policy and have established that they
> will be non-ma
sitory
> > for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
> > being, etc.
>
> debian-unofficial.org
There's a few problems with debian-unofficial.org, as I see it:
1. It has the same quality requirements as Debian proper in terms of
packaging and code
Hi,
On Friday 28 November 2008 22:42, William Pitcock wrote:
> I think issues like these call for an unsupported repository outside of
> Debian, but publicized within the community as an unofficial repository
> for things like qmail, packages unwanted in Debian proper for the time
>
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 20:51 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma?
>
> Stop trying to get qmail into Debian?
> or
> Take on upstream development of qmail and solve all the problems
> (whether qmail will then be recogni
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 +
Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related
> packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the
> ftpmasters.
Just because a package is free software does not mean it aut
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in
response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail,
and three
Hi, packages are available through
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html
Regards, Gerrit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan Mojzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are djbdns-installer, daemontools-installer, ucspi-tcp-src,
> qmail-src package, but for now is not necesary to have this
> "-installer" packages. Licence for this software changed
> "http://cr.yp.to/distributors.htm
Hello,
there are djbdns-installer, daemontools-installer, ucspi-tcp-src, qmail-src
package,
but for now is not necesary to have this "-installer" packages.
Licence for this software changed "http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html";
Packages are in public domain, including d
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 04:09:13PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:36:54 +0100, Andreas Metzler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
> >qmail installations nowadays by people that are not
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:36:54 +0100, Andreas Metzler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
>qmail installations nowadays by people that are not aready well versed
>in its configuration.
Newbies ask "which MTA to u
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Monday December 24 2007 12:34:07 Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
>>> mails / 24h - using an smarthost) than Qmail d
Well I see points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
> kind of software, some questions we could ask is:
> * is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
>basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
>minimum) ;
I do not th
f CAN we.. ?
>
> Well I see points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
> kind of software, some questions we could ask is:
> * is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
> basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
>
nd of software, some questions we could ask is:
* is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
minimum) ;
* does it supports ipv6 (non ipv6 ready software that isn't ipv4 ready
should not _ent
On lun, 2007-12-24 at 07:29 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> You should really get your facts straigt before feeding the FUD!
Please don’t scare us like that! I first thought that Jörg Schilling was
back on the list.
> Qmail is the most secure MTA out there. It's slick, and quite wel
On Monday December 24 2007 12:34:07 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > I have Postfix crash more often on my home machine (~ 10
> > mails / 24h - using an smarthost) than Qmail do on my main
> > mailservers
Miros/law Baran wrote:
> Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> qmail (if not the qmail itself).
That's becaused qmail needs/needed hardcoded uids, so we created them.
Later this c
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
>> spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
>> becomes a problem)
q
Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
>
> There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
> now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
On Dec 24, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, come on!! Get a fng reality check! Have you ever even USED
> Qmail?! And actually READ it's code!?
Yes to both.
http://www.starbsd.org/misc/why-not-qmail.png
I rest my case.
> I have Postfix crash more ofte
nts at SMTP time to avoid sending backscatter, since it is
trivial to forge SMTP and RFC2822 information. Then they never have to
send an NDR to anyone but their own users, preventing backscatter.
While I personally dislike qmail because of this problem, and because it
is gratuitously incompa
Hi Florian,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 09:41:22 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Turbo Fredriksson:
> > (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
> > only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
>
>
Hi,
On Mon, 24.12.2007 at 07:29:58 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - all that send receipt on acceptance/delivery, reject at SMTP etc (and
> claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's only
> if/when configured incorrectly that th
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 07:29:58AM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> So, right, the argument we're left with is, it's quick and it doesn't
>> have many apparent security flaws.
> It have NO security flaws (especially not if patching it with the most
> obvious patches).
“No security flaws! And eve
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those modifications, and distribute the whole un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M.A. Cater) writes:
> Smail?? [Debian mail agent pre-exim]. Don't think we've _ever_
> distributed qmail, just as we stopped distributing Pine once the licence
> restrictions became clear for similar reasons. You are making me think
> back to 19
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:12:09PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> > installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> > qmail (i
* Turbo Fredriksson:
> (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for spams is rubish - it's
> only if/when configured incorrectly that this becomes a problem)
How can you configure DJB qmail so that it rejects mail for non-existing
local mailboxes at SMTP dialog time?
--
To
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reject at SMTP etc (and claims that this makes Qmail wide open for
> spams is rubish - it's only if/when configured incorrectly that this
> becomes a problem)
How can you configure the QMail to send error messages only to
non-for
Quoting Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Right. How about integrating ldap-control, too?
The patch I'm talking about have this (quite naturally :).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> qmail is one of the few pieces
> of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author
> recommends running it under a supervisor because it can't stay running
> on it's own.
I wasn't p
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
> it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces
> of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's aut
This one time, at band camp, Turbo Fredriksson said:
> So to be or not to be is irrelevant - the question is: are we
> ALLOWED to distribute it or not?
No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of t
Hi,
On Sun, 23.12.2007 at 20:17:16 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There are times where qmail-ldap is to much (on hosts where a smart host
> is used for example) and there I use the 'simple' qmail package. On mail
> servers, I use the qmail-ldap
Quoting Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I suggest packaging qmail-ldap (www.qmail-ldap.org) instead, which
> fixes this problem and adds a number of other desirable features as
> well (compressed mail transfer, TLS support, cluster support,
> you-name-it).
I sent a pat
never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
> > license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
> > http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
>
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
> the qmail-sr
Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!?
According to[0], yes.
> And can't
> the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
I suppose so, yes.
> Opinions are like a butt -
> everyone got one (sorry, couldn't remember the
Hi,
On Fri, 21.12.2007 at 11:14:01 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject mail at
> the SMTP level for unknown users rather than accept mail and bounce it
> later? qmail in its default operational
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
> the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
Yes, the license has been changed, QMail is now fully distributable
and modifiable. Dunno if this ITP s
mit binary distribution. See e.g.
> http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
or not we SHOULD
Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> qmail (if not the qmail itself).
OK, that's possible, I can only remember back to about
it binary distribution. See e.g.
> http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
qmail (if not the qmail itself).
Jubal (...am I using Debian that
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src f
Quoting "Leo \"costela\" Antunes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please note that I don't personally like Qmail either, but I still think
> we should (but don't *have* to) provide it, if possible (I don't know
> what's the outcome of the "p
On Dec 21, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How widespread is this anyway? I hardly see any new qmail installations
> anymore, and the ones I see are largely because it's a pain to migrate away
> from.
Just one word: plesk.
And yes, I'd like
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 11:07:18AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> >
> > > qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
>
> > qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
> > on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> How widespread is this anyway? I hardly see any new qmail installations
> anymore, and the ones I see are largely because it's a pain to migrate away
> from.
>
> Of course, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”...
Well, I have too agree with yo
widespread is this anyway? I hardly see any new qmail installations
anymore, and the ones I see are largely because it's a pain to migrate away
from.
Of course, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”...
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
>> tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
>
> No, there are not.
There are certainly many others that don't nee
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
>> tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
> No, there are not.
Is the version that is
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> There are *way* better MTAs [than qmail] out there that dont need
> tons of patches applied just to fulfill basic requirements for a MTA.
No, there are not.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL
On 11240 March 1977, Guus Sliepen wrote:
>> qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
>> on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
>> BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
> This is not a
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:28:28PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
> on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
> BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
[...]
This
qmail is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system
on typical Internet-connected UNIX hosts. See BLURB, BLURB2, BLURB3, and
BLURB4 in /usr/share/doc/qmail/ for more detailed advertisements.
See /usr/share/doc/qmail/PIC.* for some ``end-to-end'' pictures of mail
flowi
ming Lang: C
Description : free software package that provides a web interface for
managing a qmail system with virtual domains
QmailAdmin is a web interface for managing email addresses in virtual
domains created by Vpopmail.
It provides admin for adding/deleting users, Aliases, Forwards, M
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
