On Monday 8 January 2001, at 15 h 45, the keyboard of Toni Mueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - It's unreliable (yes. I mean it. It eats much support because
> not all UUCP versions talk to each other, and also this tends to
> block itself for no good reason and needs manual cleanup - I di
i had this exact same problem and couldnt find a solution that worked
unfortunately. however while browsing freshmeat.net the other day i say a
programme called getmail that apparently does it very well.
worth checking out i suspect
At 14:41 3/01/2001 +0100, Martin Man wrote:
>Hi gurus,
>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:45:25PM +0100, Toni Mueller whispered:
> - It's unavailable, basically. While anyone with their pretty
> Linux or BSD box has no problems getting at appropriate UUCP
> software, everyone else has to go to their nearest computer
> museum to find one, as it seems. A
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:45:25 +0100, Toni Mueller writes:
>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:03:17 +1100, Jeremy Lunn writes:
>> >On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> >> > > Does your ISP offer some kind of s
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:45:25PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hmmm. Where do _you_ get your IP numbers from? Afaik - here in
> RIPE-land - there is a policy expressly forbidding this, and it
> could therefore result in your not getting IP numbers later...
Well, my work does have a /24 subnet th
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 03:29:22PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> The only problem with a setup like this is, that it´s exploitable by
> spammers, as they can set whatever they wnat in To: or Bcc: and deliver
> it into the box, the local mailer only sees the mails coming from
> local
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:03:17 +1100, Jeremy Lunn writes:
> >On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> >> > > Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
> >> > > a queue,
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:03:17 +1100, Jeremy Lunn writes:
>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> > > Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
>> > > a queue, there?s a script watching the dialin-logs, when it sees that
>> > > there?s a
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
> > > a queue, there?s a script watching the dialin-logs, when it sees that
> > > there?s a queue for that user, sendmail is started with on-the-fly
> >
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:12:23PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> anywhere on the Internet. This is specially important in third-world countries
> where providers are quite unreliable and you don't want to trust them for
> handling your mail.
America too, from what some people seem to rep
On Sunday 7 January 2001, at 15 h 48, the keyboard of Craig Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
> > a queue, there?s a script watching the dialin-logs, when it sees that
> > there?s a queue for that user, sendmail is start
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:48:38 +1100, Craig Sanders writes:
>> Does your ISP offer some kind of smtp-queuing? We do (mail is put into
>> a queue, there?s a script watching the dialin-logs, when it sees that
>> there?s a queue for that user, sendmail is started with on-the-fly
>> rewritten options fo
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:03:19 +1100, Craig Sanders writes:
> >because POP is not a mail transport protocol. it's not designed to be
> >one, and can not even be reliably kludged to act like one.
>
> ack. I already stand corrected. se
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:03:19 +1100, Craig Sanders writes:
>because POP is not a mail transport protocol. it's not designed to be
>one, and can not even be reliably kludged to act like one.
ack. I already stand corrected. see Message-id:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. I never ran into that
sort of problem
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 03:29:22PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:21:56 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> >On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 15 h 15, the keyboard of Robert Waldner
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> make your local mailer (sendmail, exim, whatever) fee
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > He now can use fetchmail to get the mails, and fetchmail will deliver
> > it to localhost:25, no matter what´s in From, To, Cc, whereever.
>
> Bcc: ? Mailing lists ? I repeat: it cannot work.
Delivered-To: -
That _will_ cover lists, bcc and everything because
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:49:34PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Martin Man wrote:
>
> > P.S. or if someone knows simple ruleset for procmail ??
>
> :0 c
>
this is obviously possible, but then I've to trow the email at the end into
/dev/null, because I d
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:44:57 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 15 h 29, the keyboard of Robert Waldner
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Uh, why? As far as I understood, Martin has _one_ POP-account
>> (domain-in-a-box this feature is called by us) with his ISP.
On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 15 h 29, the keyboard of Robert Waldner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, why? As far as I understood, Martin has _one_ POP-account
> (domain-in-a-box this feature is called by us) with his ISP.
Yes. This is what cannot works (despite what ISPs say).
> He now
If i recall correctly a combination of sendmail(or procmail)/fetchmail
should work ..
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Martin Man wrote:
> Hi gurus,
> which tool would you suggest me to use for simple mail sorting for my
> small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one P
Martin Man wrote:
>
> Hi gurus,
> which tool would you suggest me to use for simple mail sorting for my
> small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one POP
> account and I've to distribute appropriate email messages to
> appropriate mailboxes according to
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:21:56 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 15 h 15, the keyboard of Robert Waldner
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> make your local mailer (sendmail, exim, whatever) feeling "responsible"
>> for the domain and simply use fetchmail to pop the
On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 15 h 15, the keyboard of Robert Waldner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> make your local mailer (sendmail, exim, whatever) feeling "responsible"
> for the domain and simply use fetchmail to pop the mails
This needs an account on the ISP's machine for every local use
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:52:39 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 14 h 41, the keyboard of Martin Man
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one
> POP
>> account and I've to distribute appropriate em
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:41:23PM +0100, Martin Man wrote:
> which tool would you suggest me to use for simple mail sorting for my
> small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one POP
> account and I've to distribute appropriate email messages to
> appropriate
On Wednesday 3 January 2001, at 14 h 41, the keyboard of Martin Man
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one POP
> account and I've to distribute appropriate email messages to
> appropriate mailboxes according to To: and Cc: heade
Hi gurus,
which tool would you suggest me to use for simple mail sorting for my
small company. Let's say we're getting email for our domain via POP from one POP
account and I've to distribute appropriate email messages to
appropriate mailboxes according to To: and Cc: headers.
Th
27 matches
Mail list logo
