Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-05 Thread Davi Leal
>>> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? >>> >>> Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question >>> asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is >>> less work than converting to a different mail system. >> >>Yes, this is t

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-05 Thread Davi Leal
>>> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? >>> >>> Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question >>> asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is >>> less work than converting to a different mail system. >> >>Yes, this is

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Robert Waldner
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:00:45 +0100, "Davi Leal" writes: >> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? >> >> Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question >> asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is >> less work than conve

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Davi Leal
> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? > > Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question > asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is > less work than converting to a different mail system. Yes, this is the point.

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Packy Anderson
Davi Leal writes: > Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato > distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. I'm running 8.12.1, but I did a compile from the source tarball. I try to stay on top of the latest sendmail, and I don't like having to wait f

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Robert Waldner
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:00:45 +0100, "Davi Leal" writes: >> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? >> >> Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question >> asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is >> less work than conv

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Davi Leal
> > Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? > > Let's not get into religious arguments, since that's not the question > asked. He's got a running sendmail config; upgrading to a new version is > less work than converting to a different mail system. Yes, this is the point.

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Packy Anderson
Davi Leal writes: > Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato > distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. I'm running 8.12.1, but I did a compile from the source tarball. I try to stay on top of the latest sendmail, and I don't like having to wait

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Jeremy Lunn
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:27:41AM +0100, Davi Leal wrote: > Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato > distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia http:

woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Davi Leal
Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. Regards, Davi Leal

Re: woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Jeremy Lunn
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 11:27:41AM +0100, Davi Leal wrote: > Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato > distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. Not sure but it's safe to use Postfix, so why not use that? -- Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia http

woody's sendmail on potato

2002-02-04 Thread Davi Leal
Is it safe using the woody's sendmail (sendmail 8.12.1-5) on a potato distribution?. Note that the host is a server on production. Regards, Davi Leal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]