On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Mark Devin wrote:
> However, I didn't realise that doing this would cause potential problems with
> delivering mail. Is this only if the mail needs to be delivered to another
> user?
Yes. BTW, if your user 'mail' has 'mail' as it default group, AND since
Debian uses a sgid m
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Marcus Geiger wrote:
> Ok, this is what I did before the new fetchmail policy (starting at boot
> time) came up. I think I will insert
> fetchmail -q
> anywhere in my ip-up.d script. I thought I will give it at try but it
> seems that there is no easy solution. Maybe the
Hi Mark!
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mark Devin wrote:
> What is wrong with this? Nb. I do not have a home directory for "mail" -
> just the
Run fetchmail -v and that might help you find the problem. And you do have a
home directory for mail, but it is /var/spool/mail.
You probably need a '-' somewhe
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Andre Berger wrote:
> Though running as user mail, as Henrique suggested, is way more elegant.
> It would be a great idea to have a solution for ppp users "out of the
> box"...
There is one: /etc/fetchmailrc, and let it run as root. It is described in
the README.Debian, and a
Hi Jie!
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jie Zou wrote:
> Is is possible for updating kernel 2.2.16 to 2.2.18? If it is where to get
> the 2.2.18?
2.2.19pre17 is available in Debian unstable.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Mark Devin wrote:
> Is there some problem with what I have done?
Does user mail have 'x' permissions to the /etc/ppp directory?
I'd suggest you use /var/spool/mail to place .fetchids and /etc/fetchmail as
the place for the config though (notice that /etc/fetchmailrc will trig
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Andre Berger wrote:
> root would have to update this file whenever needed. Users can change
> their ~/.fetchmailrc on their own.
True. But I cannot add such setup as the default. It would activate dormant
.fetchmailrc's in the user directories. I can always add it as yet one m
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, William Leese wrote:
> the subject says it all really. I recently did a clean install of sid, and
> found myself without a blackbox menu what so ever (well, 'cept the Exit,
> Restart and xterm options). Anyone know how i can getg my debian menu back?
Make sure the menu packa
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, David Jardine wrote:
> I recently re-installed a slink system from scratch on my
[...]
> Fetchmail dies with something like the following:
Speaking as the fetchmail maintainer, get a new version. The fetchmail in
slink is full of segfaults. Same goes to the one in potato. The
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 10:50:23PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, David Jardine wrote:
> > > I recently re-installed a slink system from scratch on my
> > [...]
> > > Fetchmail dies
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Tony Crawford wrote:
> Henrique M Holschuh wrote (on 4 Apr 2001, at 9:48):
>
> > Well, it is not a security update, and it has about 90%
> > chance of causing headaches, since the new
> > initscript/ppp-scripts scheme will force the user to do some
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, John Bacalle wrote:
> RE: fetchmail 5.3.3 ; InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 ; AT&T Worldnet
>
> I have an odd problem fetching mail on the _first try_, and fetchmail
> hanging at the sign-off stage of the process.
Try disabling all sort of "auto" detection and telling fetchmail exac
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Barbara and Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> How do I set up the general loopback network address 127.0.0.0?
You should not need to do this in any 2.2.x or newer Linux kernel... (I
don't know about The Hurd, though). The Linux kernel will automatically
route packets using the inte
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > Anybody know how I can recreate the required files?
>
> `-- archives
> `-- partial
>
> WAG: I think you might just be able to run 'apt-get update' to update
> your package lists. If that doesn't work, try creating the directories,
> perm
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Damon Muller wrote:
> >
> > Although a real man would have been running qmail and courier-imap...
> >
Bleh, qmail? Try postfix for something with a sane license and a sane
upstream, no obnoxious install paths, and easily as secur
Hi Kent!
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Kent West wrote:
> This is a HOOT! Send it to Slashdot or Linux.com; it needs to be published.
/. ? Better send it to debianplanet.org...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the La
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Keith Johnson wrote:
> > As per subject. Quite annoying when I am trying to do important
> > things. (Like play nethack).
>
> You are not alone. This has been happening here for 6 weeks or so. It
> has one advantage - I can see the
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> All that has been done when I shut down to install a tape drive. (And a
> new kernel, of course.) Some time back I had three daemons writing to the
> screen, but now it is just ipchains. I would have submitted a bug, but it
> could be syslogd, klogd or
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > > I use Postfix as maildaemon.
> >
> > I don't believe you want to be messing around in hosts.allow
> > for this.
Correct. Postfix does not use tcpwrappers AFAIK. Therefore, it will not
check against hosts.{allow,deny}.
> I would hope that postfix's
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Chun Kit Edwin Lau wrote:
> I don't know what's happening.. but it seems like my esd can no
> long startup after I compile and install the new module 0.9+0beta3-1. also
> some of the option for module ens1371 are no long support, isn't it? it
> gave me the follow when I s
On Sat, 05 May 2001, Andrew Hagen wrote:
> Does anyone know of a free Linux implementation of LOGO computer
> language? (The LOGO with the turtle.) Are there debs available?
Yes, package ucblogo.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the dar
On Sun, 06 May 2001, mdevin wrote:
> up. However, I had trouble getting it to work because it complained
> that port 25 was already taken:
That is your fault (or some other package's). Not postfix's.
> I think this was due to inetd binding this port for some reason. I had
> upgraded from Exim a
101 - 122 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
