Dirk Tamme said:
> The solution was to install mod_perl:
>
> cd /usr/local/src
> wget http://perl.apache.org/dist/mod.perl-1.0-current.tar.gz
> tar -xzf mod.perl-1.0-current.tar.gz
> cd /usr/local/src/mod_perl-1.29
> perl Makefile.PL NO_HTTPD=1
> make
> make install
Just install it from apt, via:
Dirk Tamme said:
> The solution was to install mod_perl:
>
> cd /usr/local/src
> wget http://perl.apache.org/dist/mod.perl-1.0-current.tar.gz
> tar -xzf mod.perl-1.0-current.tar.gz
> cd /usr/local/src/mod_perl-1.29
> perl Makefile.PL NO_HTTPD=1
> make
> make install
Just install it from apt, via:
Dirk Tamme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm using sendmail 8.12.11 ( including the Milter interface), and I
> want to use the Perl interface Sendmail::Milter.
> To install Sendmail::Milter, I had done the following:
Are you aware of libsendmail-milter-perl's existence?
-Hilko
Dirk Tamme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm using sendmail 8.12.11 ( including the Milter interface), and I
> want to use the Perl interface Sendmail::Milter.
> To install Sendmail::Milter, I had done the following:
Are you aware of libsendmail-milter-perl's existence?
-Hilko
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Lucas Albers wrote:
I've also had a lot of success using mimefang on our external mail server.
It's easy to configure for any of your mail filtering needs.
Bojens, Kai said:
I don't have a solution for your particular problem but i am using
the milter interface via MIMEdefang which provides a ni
Lucas Albers wrote:
I've also had a lot of success using mimefang on our external mail server.
It's easy to configure for any of your mail filtering needs.
Bojens, Kai said:
I don't have a solution for your particular problem but i am using
the milter interface via MIMEdefang which provides a n
I've also had a lot of success using mimefang on our external mail server
I've also had a lot of success using mimefang on our external mail server.
It's easy to configure for any of your mail filtering needs.
Bojens, Kai said:
> I don't have a solution for your particular problem but i am using
> the milter interface via MIMEdefang which provides a nice way to
> use it
Hi.
> I'm using sendmail 8.12.11 ( including the Milter interface), and
> I want to use the Perl interface Sendmail::Milter.
I don't have a solution for your particular problem but i am using
the milter interface via MIMEdefang which provides a nice way to
use it via perl.
With kind regards
-Ka
Hi.
> I'm using sendmail 8.12.11 ( including the Milter interface), and
> I want to use the Perl interface Sendmail::Milter.
I don't have a solution for your particular problem but i am using
the milter interface via MIMEdefang which provides a nice way to
use it via perl.
With kind regards
-Ka
This one time, at band camp, Christian Storch said:
> I would suggest to use 'pam_ldap.so' from 'libpam-ldap' via sasl.
> How to do it with sendmail:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/debian-isp-200402/msg00267.html
I was trying to stay away from pam-ldap - was thinking it might make more
I would suggest to use 'pam_ldap.so' from 'libpam-ldap' via sasl.
How to do it with sendmail:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/debian-isp-200402/msg00267.html
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Gran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "debian-isp"
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:0
This one time, at band camp, Christian Storch said:
> I would suggest to use 'pam_ldap.so' from 'libpam-ldap' via sasl.
> How to do it with sendmail:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/debian-isp-200402/msg00267.html
I was trying to stay away from pam-ldap - was thinking it might make more
I would suggest to use 'pam_ldap.so' from 'libpam-ldap' via sasl.
How to do it with sendmail:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/debian-isp-200402/msg00267.html
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Gran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "debian-isp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday,
This one time, at band camp, Jon Hoffman said:
> I don't have a spare machine to test right now but I
> have seen a similar setup before, so I'll take a stab
> from memory. If this works post it to the list, I
> don't like posting un-tested configs.
>
> You might want to start by making sure you d
This one time, at band camp, Jon Hoffman said:
> I don't have a spare machine to test right now but I
> have seen a similar setup before, so I'll take a stab
> from memory. If this works post it to the list, I
> don't like posting un-tested configs.
>
> You might want to start by making sure you d
This one time, at band camp, Christian Storch said:
> Here some straightforward methods for sendmail:
>
> You want to restrict to some IP's?
>
> local-host-names:
> 10.0.0
> 192.168
> 127.1.2.3
Sure, but this doesn't stop incoming mail addressed to this hostname,
but coming from some random plac
This one time, at band camp, Christian Storch said:
> Here some straightforward methods for sendmail:
>
> You want to restrict to some IP's?
>
> local-host-names:
> 10.0.0
> 192.168
> 127.1.2.3
Sure, but this doesn't stop incoming mail addressed to this hostname,
but coming from some random plac
--Original Message-
From: Stephen Gran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Gran
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:23 AM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Sendmail & access restrictions
...
Ah, I see the problem - it's not _relaying_ alone I want to reject
(we&#
--Original Message-
From: Stephen Gran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Gran
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sendmail & access restrictions
...
Ah, I see the problem - it's not _relaying_ alone I want to reject
(we've got the au
Stephen Gran said:
> relay). What I want to do is not accept mail unless it comes from one
> of a few IP's, or is authenticated. Say the domain is foo.com, and this
> servers hostname is mail.foo.com. It is not listed as an MX record, so
> no legitimate emails should ever arrive there, only spa
Stephen Gran said:
> relay). What I want to do is not accept mail unless it comes from one
> of a few IP's, or is authenticated. Say the domain is foo.com, and this
> servers hostname is mail.foo.com. It is not listed as an MX record, so
> no legitimate emails should ever arrive there, only spa
This one time, at band camp, Kris Deugau said:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I think I'm being dense, but I can't figure out how to do something
> > like the following in /etc/mail/access:
> >
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: OK # front-end machine 1
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxy: OK # front-end machine 2
>
> OK. You'll
This one time, at band camp, Kris Deugau said:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> > I think I'm being dense, but I can't figure out how to do something
> > like the following in /etc/mail/access:
> >
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: OK # front-end machine 1
> > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxy: OK # front-end machine 2
>
> OK. You'll
Stephen Gran wrote:
> I think I'm being dense, but I can't figure out how to do something
> like the following in /etc/mail/access:
>
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: OK # front-end machine 1
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxy: OK # front-end machine 2
OK. You'll want to add localhost and 127.0.0.1:
localhost.localdomain R
Stephen Gran wrote:
> I think I'm being dense, but I can't figure out how to do something
> like the following in /etc/mail/access:
>
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx: OK # front-end machine 1
> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxy: OK # front-end machine 2
OK. You'll want to add localhost and 127.0.0.1:
localhost.localdomain R
El vie, 05-03-2004 a las 12:56, Lucius Junevicus escribió:
> I saw your post on setting up qmail over drbd. I would love to see
> how you did it.
> I'd like to create a how-to on setting up a hybrid cluster (open-mosix
> and drbd) for qmail.
Open Mosix? Isnt that like, autobalanced cluster? Inter
Title: Message
I saw your post on
setting up qmail over drbd. I would love to see how you did
it.
I'd like to create a
how-to on setting up a hybrid cluster (open-mosix and drbd) for
qmail.
I'd love to know how
you setup your cluster.
What do your
drbd.conf, ha.cf, haresources files l
El vie, 05-03-2004 a las 12:56, Lucius Junevicus escribió:
> I saw your post on setting up qmail over drbd. I would love to see
> how you did it.
> I'd like to create a how-to on setting up a hybrid cluster (open-mosix
> and drbd) for qmail.
Open Mosix? Isnt that like, autobalanced cluster? Inter
Title: Message
I saw your post on
setting up qmail over drbd. I would love to see how you did
it.
I'd like to create a
how-to on setting up a hybrid cluster (open-mosix and drbd) for
qmail.
I'd love to know how
you setup your cluster.
What do your
drbd.conf, ha.cf, haresources files l
>
> Hi all
>
> I need to let sendmail authenticate from a different passwd file, let me
> explain.
> Sendmail currently authenticates from /etc/passwd I would like it to use
> /etc/mailpass as step one and then to authenticate from berkleydb
> later on
> when I have verified that evereything works.
>
> Hi all
>
> I need to let sendmail authenticate from a different passwd file, let me
> explain.
> Sendmail currently authenticates from /etc/passwd I would like it to use
> /etc/mailpass as step one and then to authenticate from berkleydb
> later on
> when I have verified that evereything works.
The follwowing was tested in stable and unstable with sendmail:
For plain text (in an internal sense not - what you would see
over the network!) you'll need the package
libsasl-modules-plain
Then append
ESASL_PATH=/usr/lib/sasl
to 'sendmail.mc'. Create '/usr/lib/sasl/Sendmail.conf'
and put in t
On 2/18/04 10:20 PM, "Martin Foster" wrote:
>
> apt-get -t unstable source mailscanner (/etc/apt/sources.list has stable
> deb sources, and unstable deb-src entries)
> cd mailscanner-4.26.7
> dch -i
> vi debian/rules
> vi debian/control
> make -f debian/rules clean
> make -f debian/rules binary
Hello Dave,
/etc/mailscanner is artifact from stable. try 'dpkg -s
/etc/mailscanner/mailscanner.conf' to verify package ownership, then
'dpkg --purge mailscanner' to rid yourself of it. Note that this will
also remove any later versions, like your current testing package.
Now, for the backport
Hello Dave,
/etc/mailscanner is artifact from stable. try 'dpkg -s /etc/mailscanner/mailscanner.conf' to verify package ownership, then 'dpkg --purge mailscanner' to rid yourself of it. Note that this will also remove any later versions, like your current testing package.
Now, for the back
Jason McMullen wrote:
Good Day All,
I'm running into an odd issue. We have 2 servers that act as
"front-end" MX hosts running Sendmail. These servers then smarthost all
mail back to a main server. This works well at keeping the main server
unloaded due to dictionary attacks and whatnot. The pr
Jason McMullen wrote:
Good Day All,
I'm running into an odd issue. We have 2 servers that act as
"front-end" MX hosts running Sendmail. These servers then smarthost all
mail back to a main server. This works well at keeping the main server
unloaded due to dictionary attacks and whatnot. The
Jason,
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:19:07AM -0500, Jason McMullen wrote:
>
> I'm running into an odd issue. We have 2 servers that act as
> "front-end" MX hosts running Sendmail. These servers then smarthost all
> mail back to a main server. This works well at keeping the main server
> unloaded
Jason,
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:19:07AM -0500, Jason McMullen wrote:
>
> I'm running into an odd issue. We have 2 servers that act as
> "front-end" MX hosts running Sendmail. These servers then smarthost all
> mail back to a main server. This works well at keeping the main server
> unloaded
Monday 08 of September 2003 04:00, Craig Sanders >
> difficult to learn, just a PITA and completely unlike any other unix tools,
- does not support de-facto logging standard - syslog
- does not support CIDR
- does not support IPV6
...
> that it is far more important for his programs to be consis
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 22:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> > until the entire message has been received and processed, the receiving
> > MTA is not responsible for the message. In fact, I think this is
> > RFC-specified. Why then, if the receiver isn't resp
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) [2003.09.07 20:55]:
> qmail is so different to sendmail, exim, postfix, and just about every other
> unix MTA that migrating to it is a major PITA. migrating away from it is at
> least as bad. qmail has some very nice features, and is much faster and far
> more
On Monday 08 September 2003 14:41, mimo wrote:
> I have just played around with dovecot imap server. I can use your
> existing mail spool files. Also it allows for craetion of IMAP folders
> in users' home dirs which worries me a bit. I'd rather have the mailbox
> in MySQL or something like that. B
I have just played around with dovecot imap server. I can use your
existing mail spool files. Also it allows for craetion of IMAP folders
in users' home dirs which worries me a bit. I'd rather have the mailbox
in MySQL or something like that. But that's a differnet discussion I
guess.
Michael
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:43:33PM +1000, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> > Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
>
Well Rudi,
You have heard from most camps of users who prefer MTA's for various
reasons. Interesting enough, Debian ships exim default, and uses Mailman
for it's Debian hosted lists,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:14:09PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
> > First, scale is a consideration. Once we began to grow our customer
> > base, our email volume began to increase dramatically. Qmail queues
> > everything to disk, so the more mail yo
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:54:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> - qmail has a good integration with one of the fastest mailing list
> servers, ezmlm.
ezmlm is probably the best thing about qmail. however, it's also an example
of the technology trap that i referred to in a previous message i
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:47:14AM -0400, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > It doesnt at all Not to ellaborate, but the subject says it
> > all...even then. I hate exim too.
>
> Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be interested in
> elaboration, if there is something technically i
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 03:43:33PM +1000, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
neither. postfix is the answer.
postfix is backwards compatible with sendmail (meaning minimal disruption
during the migration) with better security, speed, and features than qmail (and
sen
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:54:28AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> Hear hear! Nationality doesn't matter. We're talking about technical merit
> of things here. Let's keep race, creed, religion, colour out of this.
If we gave that impression, that was not the idea. If someone has that
feeling, my apol
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:48:42PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Hans,
>
> Glad to hear the situation is getting better in .nl. Having been hit by
> several 10s of spam from some dutch provider the other day just didn't imply
> this :-)
I
On Sunday 07 September 2003 15:48, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
Apologies - missing attribution. This was Brian:
> > What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> > people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
> > for a discussion bet
Hans,
Glad to hear the situation is getting better in .nl. Having been hit by
several 10s of spam from some dutch provider the other day just didn't imply
this :-)
> What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and m
also sprach Thomas Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.1414 +0200]:
> Complete ACK. I'm also willing to give support, as I use
> postfix+mysql+sasl at a couple of clients.
did you ever get sasl to work with mozilla clients in any but the
non-plaintext forms? i'd really appreciate help here!
--
also sprach Nathan Eric Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.2025 +0200]:
> News flash: the FHS specifies how distributions should (or should not)
> lay out filesystems. The FHS does not prohibit end users from
> creating new root-level directories.
executables alongside configuration files in
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:47, Jason Lim wrote:
> Mmm... one of the limitations of Qmail is that it creates many many
> individual files (one for each email) and due to filesystem limitations,
> EXT2/3 starts slowing to a crawl. Of course, another way would be to use
> ReiserFS, but wouldn't doing a FS
> Please people,
>
> What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
> people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
> for a discussion between kids. We are adults, we are professionals, this
> list is to discuss technicall matters (personal opinions a
I wrote:
>> Unfortunately, [Qmail's] not being maintained by its
>> author.
I've also used [PM]MDF and Smail. Their authors bailed, too.
I've used Slackware's and SuSE's Sendmail on personal systems,
but never for anything other people were depending on.
W.D. McKinney top-posted:
>I know of sev
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> > I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> > in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> > (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
>
> Running the queue on a ramdisk would kill reliability.
Indeed, been there
- Original Message -
From: "Cameron L. Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 07 September, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 01:14, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I was under the impression that Sendmail also queues everything to disk.
> > How does it's queue operate then?
>
> While the message is coming in, Sendmail buffers the message to memory,
> optional
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Running the queue on a ramdisk would kill reliability.
Using a non-volatile RAM device
Hmm.
Since '98 ...good for you.
All the patches in the world don't help some folks anyway.Qmail has many
ways to skin a cat.
In the end, it's pick a horse and ride it. Exim, Postfix, Sendmail and
qmail all have querks. Like the Mutt homepage, "All mail clients suck.
This one just sucks less.
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:19:54PM -, Cameron L. Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I've given up on Qmail. I'm using Exim for small systems,
> and I'll try Postfix for my next big one.
Why won't you give exim a try on bigger systems?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
(Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Howabout in an fs made in a file mounted looback?)
It's secure and reliable.
Unfortunately, it's not being maintained by its
author. If you want
Please people,
What is the connection between the nationality of Wietse Venema and
people who sent spam? This is a very strange argument and more fitted
for a discussion between kids. We are adults, we are professionals, this
list is to discuss technicall matters (personal opinions allowed).
P
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:01:29PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Friday 05 September 2003 13:45, Nico Meijer wrote:
>
> > - wietse venema is [...] d) dutch
>
> Taking into account that .nl is one of the major sources of spam right now
> (through a2000.nl a
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 09:19:51AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0740 +0200]:
> > This is illegal. And in any case, it's not official.
>
> Correction, this is not illegal, but only if you install a package
> that violates the FHS[1] big
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 11:19, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> cyrus huh? in that case: is cyrus-popd a drop-in replacement for UW-pop
> (ipopd) on debian?
> I seem to remember it is not.
You are correct. Cyrus uses a completely different method for storing
mail, so you cannot just install its POP daemo
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:31, Guus Houtzager wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > > political implications of generating tech support calls
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> > I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get m
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 10:18, Tinus Nijmeijers wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> > political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> > I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get m
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 16:08, Eric Sproul wrote:
> Yes, I know we could set a larger minimum interval for POP, but the
> political implications of generating tech support calls about "why can't
> I POP my mail?" prevent it. Don't get me started on THAT. 8^o
sorry to butt in, but HOW could you se
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 01:14, Russell Coker wrote:
> I was under the impression that Sendmail also queues everything to disk. How
> does it's queue operate then?
While the message is coming in, Sendmail buffers the message to memory,
optionally piping the DATA portion to a socket (for milter scan
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [2003.09.04.1447 +0200]:
> > Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be
> > interested in elaboration, if there is something technically
> > inferior about exim or postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or
> > po
On Friday 05 September 2003 13:45, Nico Meijer wrote:
> - wietse venema is [...] d) dutch
Taking into account that .nl is one of the major sources of spam right now
(through a2000.nl and plant.nl), I'm not sure if this counts for or against
using postfix.
-- vbi (Happy postfix user)
(Since ex
also sprach martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0740 +0200]:
> This is illegal. And in any case, it's not official.
Correction, this is not illegal, but only if you install a package
that violates the FHS[1] big time. I don't see the merits in qmail
to account for this compromise.
1
Hi Martin,
> - ralf hildebrandt uses postfix (he's the guru, next to wietse.
- ralf hildebrandt and patrick koetter (the other guru) are coming out
with a book on postfix (http://www.nostarch.com/postfix.htm)
- wietse venema (postfix's author) is a) capable b) generally a nice
person, or so i've
also sprach W.D. McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0448 +0200]:
> > - qmail isn't available as a binary package for Debian
>
> Wrong. See http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
This is illegal. And in any case, it's not official.
> > - qmail support includes being flamed by the author
>
> Wrong
also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.05.0207 +0200]:
> I'd add:
> - exim has the most extensive and useful documentation
>
> (But I'd love to be proven wrong!)
possible, although i do find the stuff on postfix.org adequate.
maybe not for MTA newbies but for people with experienc
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
> First, scale is a consideration. Once we began to grow our customer
> base, our email volume began to increase dramatically. Qmail queues
> everything to disk, so the more mail you do, the more pressure you put
> on your disk I/O. The server running
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 06:51:41PM -0800, W.D. McKinney wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
>> Sendmail's milter plug-in system has also been invaluable when we
>> implemented server-side bayesian spam filtering, and as we work on virus
>> scanning.
>>
>
>qmail being modular h
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:58, Eric Sproul wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
> > I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
> > ask again and get the latest from this list.
> >
>
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 14:54, martin f krafft wrote:
> - qmail isn't available as a binary package for Debian
Wrong. See http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
> .
> - qmail support includes being flamed by the author
Wrong. Ask a question and find out. Many helpful people who don't flame
but as they h
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:54:55AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Mostly good comments (I've never used postfix or exim -- comments seem
accurate from what I've heard) but I have to disagree with this:
>- qmail support includes being flamed by the author
I've subscribed to the qmail list more or
> random notes (these are facts and opinions, please don't flame me):
>
> - sendmail and exim are both single setuid binaries. bad.
> - postfix is the most performant of all four.
> - qmail has an interesting but possibly confusing configuration paradigm
> - postfix has the easiest configuration,
Martin,
Very good.
More food for thought and consideration.
Thanks
Regards
Rudi.
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.04.1447 +0200]:
Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be
interested in elaboration, if there is som
also sprach Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.04.1447 +0200]:
> Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be
> interested in elaboration, if there is something technically
> inferior about exim or postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or
> politically, I suppose, since much of peo
El jue, 04-09-2003 a las 07:58, Eric Sproul escribió:
> We chose OpenLDAP. At the time (1999), Qmail
> did not have LDAP support (correct me if I'm wrong). Sendmail did.
> Even if Qmail did have LDAP support then, Sendmail's source was *much*
> easier to dig through for the performance tuning w
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 08:58:27 -0400,
Eric Sproul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
> > I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd lik
Hi,
First thanks to all who have replied.
We're all busy so I do appreciate the time taken
to tap out a reply message.
It's very interesting and in some ways what I expected.
There is no right or wrong.
Just like programing there is many ways to the top of the mountain.
So for me it's come down
I repeat the earlier question: Why not exim? I really don't know. I have fallen in
love with
it, thought the tools to configure do not exists (Oh my God, I actually have to
MANUALLY edit
the config file).
I have a small installation, but intend to grow, and if there will be a problem with
exim,
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 01:43, Rudi Starcevic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to bother you all with this repeat question.
> I've have searched around and seen plenty of opinions but I'd like to
> ask again and get the latest from this list.
>
> Sendmail or Qmail ? That is my question.
Rudi,
I work at an
> It doesnt at all Not to ellaborate, but the subject says it
> all...even then. I hate exim too.
Has it been covered before on this list? I for one would be interested in
elaboration, if there is something technically inferior about exim or
postfix to qmail or sendmail? Or politically, I su
> At this stage I'm leaning towards sticking with Sendmail but something
> inside wants to know more about Qmail.
I'd pick exim or postfix over either of those, but then again I've only
dealt with smaller mail installations.
Take care,
Dale
--
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Comp
Hi,
so how does exim compare in all of this?
Sorry Jamie - In my case, and my case alone, Exim doesn't compare.
There are many very good MTA's out there.
For me I know Sendmail - ( I compile from source ).
I've heard lots of good things about Qmail to I did consider that one only.
Also every Guru
El jue, 04-09-2003 a las 01:47, Jamie Baddeley escribió:
> so how does exim compare in all of this?
>
It doesnt at all Not to ellaborate, but the subject says it
all...even then. I hate exim too.
> jamie
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Hi,
>> Why change something thats
working perfectly ??
Greg .. Yes that's what I was thinking .. -- but that's what they also
said in Nth America 'til the recent blackouts :-(
>> And it has no paralell in security (AGES and AGES better than sendmail)
Alex .. That's what mostly appeals to
so how does exim compare in all of this?
jamie
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:10, Alex Borges wrote:
> It all depends
>
> qmail has a very non standard way of being managed. Its almost
> meta-unix. That said, its VERY flexible, extremely powerfull, once you
> get a hang of it INCREDEBLY EASY to manag
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
