On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Marek Podmaka wrote:
So is there any solution for this? We can't use safe_mode in php,
it's too restrictive for most customers. We use postfix (default
version in woody)
A couple of thoughts:
1. Transparently proxy SMTP to your an MTA you control, which limits the
number o
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:55, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand your guys' point, and I appreciate it.What you describe
> here sounds nearly identicaly to my auto-responder. But, that may be my
> lack of knowledge of how the mail system works in general. Something about
Be
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:11, Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam does not justify spam. I have come to this realization myself only
> recently (I am, unfortunately still, a TMDA user). I can understand that
You should cease using TMDA. For reference I never respond to TMDA type
mes
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:29, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John C has requested that
> > the following message be removed from the archives.
>
> My apologies that my autoresponder spammed the list. I've never posted to
> the debian-isp list. Apparently someone's machine is infected w
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:58, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...spammers drown you in water?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor
>
> >..you want respect? Earn it.
>
> If earning respect in this crowd requires being disrespectful, then I'm not
> interested.
Earning res
>...spammers drown you in water?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor
>..you want respect? Earn it.
If earning respect in this crowd requires being disrespectful, then I'm not
interested.
The list admins will either remove my private address from this thread, or
they won't.
Eithe
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:55:01 -0700, John wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> He could easily have shared his idea with the list, and mailed me
> separately at my new address, without (in his words) publically
> archiving my private address for spammers to harvest. Do you not
> agree that th
> The smarter way to let people know that your email address has
> changed is by
> rejecting the message. You can reject the message (in postfix)
> by using the
> relocated table, that will reject the message giving the error "User has
> moved to johnc at planetz.com" (or whatever you'd like the
>
On Saturday 23 October 2004 16:29, John Cooper wrote:
> Clearly I've touched a nerve with Mr. Coker! The virtiolic nature of his
> response here, and the public posting of my private email address which I
> was trying to protect, is simply inane and immature. Next time, Mr.
You are sending un
> John C has requested that
> the following message be removed from the archives.
>
My apologies that my autoresponder spammed the list. I've never posted to
the debian-isp list. Apparently someone's machine is infected with an
email-worm, which has used my jcooper address (which I stopped using
For the benefit of interested people. John C has requested that the following
message be removed from the archives.
Auto-responders ARE spam. They will hit innocent people. Just because most
victims of auto-responders don't complain does not mean that the
auto-responder is not causing proble
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:27:24PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to
> > change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com.
This is silly reasonin
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to
> change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com.
Please don't be stupid. Such auto-responders will get you added to all the
spam lists aga
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Automatic reply- John's address has changed
Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to change my
email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com.
If you're not sending me spam, please update your records and ***res
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
Vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail.
Wir werden in kürze Ihre Anfrage beantworten und bitten Sie zwischenzeitlich um etwas
Geduld und Versändnis.
M.F.G.
Mindel EDV
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
Добрый день
Кто-то, возможно вы, написал письмо с адреса debian-isp@lists.debian.org
на адрес робота управления подпиской по почте [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Такое письмо означает, что требуется ОТПИСАТЬ адрес
debian-isp@lists.debian.org от дискуссионного листа
"Флюиды Лолиты: Расслабьтесь, поговорим о се
Добрый день
Кто-то, возможно вы, написал письмо с адреса [EMAIL PROTECTED]
на адрес робота управления подпиской по почте [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Такое письмо означает, что требуется ОТПИСАТЬ адрес
[EMAIL PROTECTED] от дискуссионного листа
"Флюиды Лолиты: Расслабьтесь, поговорим о сексе.".
Если это так
Meneguzzi Guerrino
INSERM U634
Faculté de Médecine
27, Ave de Valombrose
06107 Nice Cedex 2
France
Tel.: 33 (0)493 37 77 79
Fax.: 33 (0)493 81 14 04
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Meneguzzi Guerrino
INSERM U634
Faculté de Médecine
27, Ave de Valombrose
06107 Nice Cedex 2
France
Tel.: 33 (0)493 37 77 79
Fax.: 33 (0)493 81 14 04
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_3
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_30_2004_31092
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Mail transaction failed. Partial message is available.
>=_NextPart_ST_11_51_35_Friday_January_3
Thursday 23 October 2003 06:12, Lauchlin Wilkinson >
> What are other people doing?
sticking to RFCs. O:-)
i would not lower it under 3daysjust in case the remote mail server brakes
on weekend.
--
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
-- Kank the Klingon, "Day of the
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 15:12:55 +1100, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are peoples thoughts on the length of time mail should sit in the
> mail queue? Due to the rise in the amount of spam and viruses that
> seems to be going around lately I throttled back the delivery warning
> back
Thursday 23 October 2003 06:12, Lauchlin Wilkinson >
> What are other people doing?
sticking to RFCs. O:-)
i would not lower it under 3daysjust in case the remote mail server brakes
on weekend.
--
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
-- Kank the Klingon, "Day of the
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 at 15:12:55 +1100, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are peoples thoughts on the length of time mail should sit in the
> mail queue? Due to the rise in the amount of spam and viruses that
> seems to be going around lately I throttled back the delivery warning
> back
JawMail: Give the free JawMail A try. I'm using it here and it's
great. Also, if you have any problems, the programmer will assist you
quite quickly. It's worth trying. It directly connects to the IMAP-
Server, supports folders etc. as well.
On 30 May 2003 at 10:33, Carlos L.M. wrote:
> I need
JawMail: Give the free JawMail A try. I'm using it here and it's
great. Also, if you have any problems, the programmer will assist you
quite quickly. It's worth trying. It directly connects to the IMAP-
Server, supports folders etc. as well.
On 30 May 2003 at 10:33, Carlos L.M. wrote:
> I need
On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34, Bart Matthaei wrote:
> > For software, I would use this:
> >
> > SMTP: Postfix
>
> Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends
> on your personal preference.
If you want to run a machine for years on end without needing an urgent
securit
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:33:14AM +0200, Carlos L.M. wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000
> accounts. Can you help me ??
>
> For software, I would use this:
>
> SMTP: Postfix
Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends
on you
On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:34, Bart Matthaei wrote:
> > For software, I would use this:
> >
> > SMTP: Postfix
>
> Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends
> on your personal preference.
If you want to run a machine for years on end without needing an urgent
securit
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:33:14AM +0200, Carlos L.M. wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need a sample of mail architecture for up 30.000
> accounts. Can you help me ??
>
> For software, I would use this:
>
> SMTP: Postfix
Postfix works fine. Sendmail or qmail would do the trick as well. Depends
on you
I would check /etc/login.defs, you can specify the Mail drop there. You
can further customize the default adduser options in /etc/adduser.conf
(i think it is...)
~duane
Splash Tekalal wrote:
I've found an interesting, if annoying bug in my system and was
wondering if anyone could suggest a fix.
Hi
Splash Tekalal wrote:
[...]
When I create a new user account, according to logcheck e-mails, the
system is setting new users' e-mail boxes to /dev/null..
Doing a first time run of pine with each user fixes the problem, but I'd
like to try and fix the defaults.. Where would I find this setting
Hello,
Am 19:16 2003-02-24 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben:
>
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
>The fastest drives (15000rpm) will take an average of 4ms for the disk
to spin
>to the correct location to start a transfer in addition to the seek
times for
>moving the heads. Th
Hello,
Am 19:16 2003-02-24 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben:
>
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
>The fastest drives (15000rpm) will take an average of 4ms for the disk
to spin
>to the correct location to start a transfer in addition to the seek
times for
>moving the heads. Th
l Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Mail Server Authentication
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SAS
l Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mail Server Authentication
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2
I
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2
I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords,
and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd
- hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to mainta
Hi Teun,
had a look at the link
Postfix is compiled with SASL, and Cyrus with SASL2
I dont want to use 2 'db' files to store the same usernames and passwords,
and as I said, I dont want them in Mysql or /etc/passwd
- hmmm... was hoping to find a package that I wouldnt have to mainta
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Mail Server Authentication
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently working on installing a new mail server for a small number
of
> users (50-100).
>
> I do NOT want the user
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:03 PM
Subject: Mail Server Authentication
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently working on installing a new mail server for a small number
of
> users (50-100).
>
> I do
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 10:16, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
> [disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all]
>
> I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its
> developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of
> mails during their performan
Russell Coker wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
> > Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take
> > surprisingly large amounts of disk space.
>
> Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is
> using the service and what they are doing.
>
> But my
[disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all]
I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its
developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of
mails during their performance testing. I found it really easy to
administrate and I am using MySQL
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 10:16, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
> [disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all]
>
> I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its
> developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of
> mails during their performan
Russell Coker wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
> > Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take
> > surprisingly large amounts of disk space.
>
> Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is
> using the service and what they are doing.
>
> But my
[disclaimer: I am not a specialist in mail servers at all]
I have installed James (check www.apache.org) on one machine and its
developers claim, if I remember correctly, to send several millions of
mails during their performance testing. I found it really easy to
administrate and I am using MySQL
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:27:56AM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
> Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
> mail server for N users?
>
> I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
> for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbe
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:27:56AM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
> Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
> mail server for N users?
>
> I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
> for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbe
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo:
> As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering.
Try Amavis on top of that! ;-)
--
.''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me?
: :' :Crazy by Aerosmith
`. `'Proudly running Debian G
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users.
It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a
better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is
rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which
seems to be normal.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use
> > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the
> > reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry
> > abou
Lauchlin Wilkinson dijo:
> As I said, the most cpu hungry app is the spam filtering.
Try Amavis on top of that! ;-)
--
.''`. Girl, you gotta change your crazy ways, you hear me?
: :' :Crazy by Aerosmith
`. `'Proudly running Debian G
We have one machine that is currently handleing about that many users.
It runs Debian 3.0 stable, sendmail, spamassassin (if anyone has a
better spam fillter let me know), imap and pop, and the load average is
rarely above 0.7. Most of the load comes from spamassassin. Which
seems to be normal.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:59, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use
> > fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the
> > reliability issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry
> > abou
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Colin Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Mail server
>
> If a message delivery tak
Russell Coker wrote:
I have been considering modifying the Qmail and maildrop code to not use
fsync() etc to allow more users per server (yes I know about the reliability
issues, but there are lots of more important things to worry about).
Are you using mboxes under /var/spool/mail, or are you
Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
mail server for N users?
I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify them to
suit. \:
I'm looking at
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:34, Colin Ellis wrote:
> Email doesn't really need much processing, but does take surprisingly large
> amounts of disk space.
Obviously such things differ depending on exactly who is using the service and
what they are doing.
But my experience is that with modern disks a m
Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as
a mail server for N users?
I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these
things for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could
modify them to suit. \:
I'm looking at
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:27, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
> Can anyone give me any figures on how much machine I need to serve as a
> mail server for N users?
>
> I appreciate that every server is unique, but I can't judge these things
> for the life of me, and if I had baseline numbers I could modify
If its of any help, at my last firm, we had 1000 email domains all using
different setup's their were 900 pop accounts checking their mail every
5 - 10 mins our set up was
Sendmail 8.11
Debian 3.0 kernel 2.4.18
intel 550Mhz
256Mb Ram
40Gb Hd
Machine load never above 0.7
Asher Densmore-Lynn wrot
Your question is certainly quite vague, but here are a few things to think
about..
What mail delivery program are you thinking of using and are you planning on
providing pop3 and/or imap service? Imap requires more processing power to
display the mail folders, but it depends on the software again
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 at 11:32:53PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> PS: actually, the only other thing you could do is set firewall rules
> blocking inbound tcp port 25. if your mail server is the primary MX for
> your domain then you would also need a secondary MX and open the
> firewall for just tha
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:12:51AM -0500, Daniel J. Rychlik wrote:
> This is great, Just great. I run a mail server on dsl service
> provided by mabell. I wrote a perl script that mails me some reports
> on activities on my server everyday. I wake up this morning and I
> have an alarm.
> Obvious
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:54, Philipp Schmidt wrote:
> within this discussion, i got the idea to put an external journal for
> the ext3fs on an raid1-volume the real data on a raid5, hopefully, when
> writing the journal out to the disk having more data to be written an
> once - this would be worth a
On Tue, 2002-08-20 00:42:31 +0200, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote:
> > True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean,
> > our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3%
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:17, you wrote:
> True. Do you know why ext2 sync-mounted is so abysmally slow? I mean,
> our RAID was barely breaking a sweat, and bonnie++ was barely using 2-3%
> CPU, and yet, things just wouldn't go any faster, what's the bottleneck?
Write back caching is simply a great
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:51, you wrote:
> reply to my last email? I'm sorry to bother, but I'm trying to find a
I missed that, but it seems you raise the same issues here.
> suitable filesystem and mount options for a qmail queue. DJB says no to
> ext2 unless it's sync mounted, but I found abysma
> Rumour has it that data=journal can actually improve performance in some
> situations. If a program is writing lots of small files synchronously
(quite
> common for a mail server that has one tiny control file for every
message,
> and the average message file isn't too big) then journalling the
I decided that this message is better for Debian-ISP, so I replied to the
list and BCC'd you. I hope you don't object.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:20, you wrote:
> I'm having some trouble finding info on this stuff and found a
> knowledgeable-sounding post of yours on debian-isp. Please ignore if
>
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 litt
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 12:12:43AM -0400, Brian Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) writes:
>
> > Though I use uw-imapd instead of Courier. The general consensus is Courier
> > is better, but I went with uw-imapd because it was "lighter", and I had
> > legacy non-Maildir mailboxes.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) writes:
> Though I use uw-imapd instead of Courier. The general consensus is Courier
> is better, but I went with uw-imapd because it was "lighter", and I had
> legacy non-Maildir mailboxes.
>
> Courier is nearly 1MB installed including ssl and support packages,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:49:25PM -0600, Lance Levsen wrote:
>
> > What should I install to get mail to work?
> > I have a small network:
> > -1 debian gateway
> > -2 debian boxes
> > -4 Win98 PC (sorry, the kids are teached at school with word, excel etc.)
>
> > Frank.
>
> I'd suggest Postfix/
> What should I install to get mail to work?
> I have a small network:
> -1 debian gateway
> -2 debian boxes
> -4 Win98 PC (sorry, the kids are teached at school with word, excel etc.)
> Frank.
I'd suggest Postfix/Courier IMAP. If you have the mail hosted
elsewhere on an POP or IMAP server then
Hi,
For me a mix of qmail and fetchmail worked beautifully until I got a
static (at which point fetchmail was no longer required). I did it all
with one machine but if you really want you could use two (though I
don't see the point). Fetchmail would retrieve the messages when
connected and q
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:50, Craig wrote:
> Hi Fellows
>
> Has anyone succeeded in setting up a multi-user mailbox that
> exchange 2000 retrieves mail from using exim ?> I am having
> the problem that when exchange retrieves the messages, its
> resending them again which causes the recipients o
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 16:50, Craig wrote:
> Hi Fellows
>
> Has anyone succeeded in setting up a multi-user mailbox that
> exchange 2000 retrieves mail from using exim ?> I am having
> the problem that when exchange retrieves the messages, its
> resending them again which causes the recipients
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:37, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Some of my friends even take hidden tape recorders into meetings.
>
> I thought that, legally, one would have to actually warn the person being
> recorded that a recording was taking place. I know that when I phone a
> number of large companies, they
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't
want
> > that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or
> > something like that?
>
> Tough luck.
>
> If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working o
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46, Jason Lim wrote:
> Mmm... but then, what if you ARE speaking for your company, but don't want
> that person to then send it off to their internal mailing list or
> something like that?
Tough luck.
If a representative of vendor for a project I'm working on sends me an e
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often
> > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where
mail is
> > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients
(software,
> > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they
> > Well, I guess that depends on how important the mail is, and how often
> > people "download" their mail. Obviously in an IMAP situation where
mail is
> > stored on the server, it must be safe and secure. With clients
(software,
> > i mean) downloading their mail to the desktop, the most they
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:18, Jason Lim wrote:
> > RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail
>
> servers
>
> > as the data is changing all the time, and they'll never be complete.
> >
> > Having a single drive failure lose all your data is unacceptable.
>
> Well, I guess th
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:17, Chris Jenks wrote:
> > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any
experience
> > with them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right
place
> > after all.
>
> RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail
ser
At 05:34 PM 3/18/02, you wrote:
> > I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any
>experience with
> > them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place
>after all.
>Most of us work in ISP/hosting type environments, so all your
>considerations have already be
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:17, Chris Jenks wrote:
> I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any experience
> with them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place
> after all.
RAID is mandatory for a mail server. Backups are difficult for mail servers
as the
>
> I hadn't even thought of using a RAID set up. I haven't had any
experience with
> them. Hmm.. looks like I asked the right question in the right place
after all.
>
> Thanks
> Chris
Most of us work in ISP/hosting type environments, so all your
considerations have already been considered by us
At 02:08 PM 3/18/02, Russell Coker wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:12, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support
> > >
> > > It's WAY above 500. :-)
> >
> > It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might
> > have a bit of trouble
At 01:12 PM 3/18/02, you wrote:
> > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support
> >
> > It's WAY above 500. :-)
> >
>
>It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might
>have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous
>and concurr
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:12, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support
> >
> > It's WAY above 500. :-)
>
> It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might
> have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous
> a
> > 1 What is the max user limit that woody + exim will support
>
> It's WAY above 500. :-)
>
It also seriously depends on what the hardware is. I think a 486/33 might
have a bit of trouble coping with 500 (or lets say 200-300) simultaneous
and concurrent users trying to check their email at the
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:28:12AM -0500, Chris Jenks wrote:
> I hate asking this, but I thought that this would be the fastest
> way to get the answer.
>
> I may be setting up a mail server for a factory. From what little
> I know so far, it will be for all a mail server for all five hundred
> e
Thanks for all your suggestions.
Qmail and vpopper I was sort of familiar with... looking (much) harder I
see that's what I need.
Thanks a million. (:
--
Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks for all your suggestions.
Qmail and vpopper I was sort of familiar with... looking (much) harder I
see that's what I need.
Thanks a million. (:
--
Asher Densmore-Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
> Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains
> such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter,
> I realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this.
Postfix virtual domains operate like this by default, however you can make
it operate li
> Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains
> such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter,
> I realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this.
Postfix virtual domains operate like this by default, however you can make
it operate l
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 08:31:20PM -0600, Asher Densmore-Lynn wrote:
> Does anyone have the slightest clue how to host mail for multiple domains
> such that every domain has a unique namespace? Thinking about the matter, I
> realized I don't quite know how to accomplish this.
>
I use qmail, vpopma
I use exim, which has ample documentation on how to do this. Basically,
I have a passwd. for several different domains, theres no need
for a matching shadow (unless I plan to have "real" accounts for the
people).
Exim justmakes sure the user exists in the appropriate passwd file, and
we have a di
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
