On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 08:42 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Noel Butler :
> > *sigh*
> >
> > are you really this stupid or just trolling ?
>
> Seriously, I think you should all go offlist with your insults. Stop stealing
> other peoples attention with your dogmatic positions. Obviously you
* Noel Butler :
> *sigh*
>
> are you really this stupid or just trolling ?
Seriously, I think you should all go offlist with your insults. Stop stealing
other peoples attention with your dogmatic positions. Obviously you seem to
have opposite positions and all of you seem to have a strong opinion
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:26 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Noel Butler put forth on 7/1/2010 4:46 PM:
>
> < snipped the juvenile stabs >
>
> > oh but as a parting shot, with all that mail we get, little spam, scams
> > or viruses gets to our users, that says we are doing something right,
> > and
* Daniel L. Miller :
> I would respectfully suggest we're getting just a little off-topic
> here - can we confine discussions on this list to something
> Dovecot-related?
+1
p...@rick
--
state of mind
Digitale Kommunikation
http://www.state-of-mind.de
Franziskanerstraße 15 Telefon +49 89
On 7/4/2010 2:08 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 7/4/2010 12:57 PM:
in the queue for more than a few minutes... mine rarely stay there for
more than a second or two...
With the popularity of greylisting these days I would think you'd be seeing at
least a handful
Charles Marcus put forth on 7/4/2010 12:57 PM:
> in the queue for more than a few minutes... mine rarely stay there for
> more than a second or two...
With the popularity of greylisting these days I would think you'd be seeing at
least a handful a day that sit in the queue for multiple minutes.
On 2010-07-03 11:09 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 7/2/10 6:52 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote:
>> # postconf -n | grep delay_warning
>> delay_warning_time = 15m
>> #
> ...
>> It works for everyone who enables it. What the user *does* with the
>> warning is their problem. I don't sympathize with idio
On 7/2/10 6:52 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-07-02 5:13 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 7/2/2010 10:11 AM:
# postconf -n | grep delay_warning
delay_warning_time = 15m
#
...
It works for everyone who enables it. What the user *does* with the
warning is their pr
On 2.7.2010, at 23.52, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> A daily or twice daily error summary would probably be more useful to
>> most SAs IMHO.
>
> It would be useful, yes, and I'd love to see this implemented. In fact
> this has come up on list more than once, and I seem to recall that
> Wietse has no i
On 2010-07-02 5:13 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 7/2/2010 10:11 AM:
>
>> # postconf -n | grep delay_warning
>> delay_warning_time = 15m
>> #
>
> That's disabled by default:
So? Its easy enough to enable...
> It may work for some folks.
It works for everyone who enabl
Jerry put forth on 7/2/2010 11:59 AM:
> I don't speak for Noel; however, that is precisely what I was referring
> to. There are numerous tools available to monitor system functions,
> mail systems, etc. The concept of having to review potentially
> thousands of pages of data every day is to mainta
Charles Marcus put forth on 7/2/2010 10:11 AM:
> # postconf -n | grep delay_warning
> delay_warning_time = 15m
> #
That's disabled by default:
delay_warning_time (default: 0h)
The time after which the sender receives the message headers of mail that
is still queued.
To enable this fe
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:11:12 -0400
Charles Marcus articulated:
> # postconf -n | grep delay_warning
> delay_warning_time = 15m
> #
>
> Other than that I agree absolutely with the rest, except to note that
> most of this monitoring can be done automatically with tools designed to
> *watch* for
On 2010-07-02 10:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> You mentioned nothing of outbound mail in your diatribe, only
> inbound. That means you only perform half of your duties as a mail
> OP. There are numerous scenarios in which outbound mail will get
> deferred, sometimes for up to 5 days or more. Users
Noel Butler put forth on 7/1/2010 4:46 PM:
< snipped the juvenile stabs >
> oh but as a parting shot, with all that mail we get, little spam, scams
> or viruses gets to our users, that says we are doing something right,
> and it hasn't been since around 2004 that we had any particular smtp
> serv
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 21:43 -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 7/1/10 9:59 AM +0200 Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> > I do _not_ argue about security here. I really wonder why some distros
> > still allow ssh-access by default for every user and some don't. Even a
> > virtual-user based setup requires system
On 7/1/10 9:59 AM +0200 Steffen Kaiser wrote:
I do _not_ argue about security here. I really wonder why some distros
still allow ssh-access by default for every user and some don't. Even a
virtual-user based setup requires system users, so one cannot ignore uid
related security either.
huh? no
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 18:16 -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > (I wrote a script to convert from vpopmail structure to a better
> > structure when we moved from that mess to postfix/dovecot/mysql a few
> > years back, that conversion, including moving m
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Noel Butler wrote:
(I wrote a script to convert from vpopmail structure to a better
structure when we moved from that mess to postfix/dovecot/mysql a few
years back, that conversion, including moving mail took all of 45
minutes, most of that was copying mail, in the early day
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 12:12 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> > Mail Administration is not complicated, all too many people like to over
> > complicate their setups and only cause themselves work.
> >
> > I've had more than one CEO in the past say to me that they like to see
> > key NOC staff d
On 2010-07-01 1:04 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 7/1/2010 6:39 AM:
>> On 2010-06-30 9:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/30/2010 5:11 PM:
Virtual users are extremely simple to setup, no need for MySQL
unless you have a bunch.
T
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:12:37 -0500
Stan Hoeppner articulated:
> I'd just get a huge kick out of cross posting what the two of you
> state here to spam-l and watching you get eaten alive due to this
> "runs itself if setup right" hands off management approach to email
> systems. Rich would send y
Noel Butler put forth on 7/1/2010 5:32 AM:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:14 -0400, Jerry wrote:
>
>
>> I agree. If the system is constructed correctly it certainly does not
>> need that sort of attention. There is software available that can
>> monitor the system to a high degree of satisfaction. Ho
Charles Marcus put forth on 7/1/2010 6:39 AM:
> On 2010-06-30 9:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/30/2010 5:11 PM:
>>> On 2010-06-29 4:16 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
Virtual mailboxes have their place, of course, but they're overused,
especially at small sites. I suppo
Noel Butler put forth on 7/1/2010 4:54 AM:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 04:01 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>
>> Anyone who isn't looking at mail logs or log summaries daily and taking
>> action
>> on any problems needing attention doesn't count as a mail OP.
>
>
>
> That's one of the most ridicul
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 02:28, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 6/30/10 6:11 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote:
>>
>> That's just plain silly. Virtual users are extremely simple to setup, no
>> need for MySQL unless you have a bunch.
>
> I agree. I am always in favor of virtual users, it just gives you a lot
>
On 2010-06-30 9:03 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/30/2010 5:11 PM:
>> On 2010-06-29 4:16 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>>> Virtual mailboxes have their place, of course, but they're overused,
>>> especially at small sites. I suppose this might be in part because
>>> most HOWTOs ar
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:14 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> I agree. If the system is constructed correctly it certainly does not
> need that sort of attention. There is software available that can
> monitor the system to a high degree of satisfaction. However, Noel, I
> firmly believe that there are OPs (
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:54:44 +1000
Noel Butler articulated:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 04:01 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>
> > Anyone who isn't looking at mail logs or log summaries daily and
> > taking action on any problems needing attention doesn't count as a
> > mail OP.
>
> That's one of
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 04:01 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Anyone who isn't looking at mail logs or log summaries daily and taking action
> on any problems needing attention doesn't count as a mail OP.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen todate.
Do you seriously expect ISP admins
Steffen Kaiser put forth on 7/1/2010 2:59 AM:
>> It's more a matter of the individuals skill level.
>
> Well, a "system user" setup requires almost no skill of mail-related
> stuff ;-)
Setup? I'd agree--not a lot of skill required. Managing it afterward? That
requires mail admin skills, regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-29 4:16 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
Virtual mailboxes have their place, of course, but they're overused,
especially at small sites. I suppose this might be in part because
most HOWTOs are for virtual.
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 18:11 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> but if they don't virtual users is
> just as easy/legitimate as system users with no shell access.
I agree, virtual users are not only easier to deal with, it gives you
greater flexibility, but most importantly, better security.
in the
On 6/30/10 6:11 PM -0400 Charles Marcus wrote:
That's just plain silly. Virtual users are extremely simple to setup, no
need for MySQL unless you have a bunch.
I agree. I am always in favor of virtual users, it just gives you a lot
more flexibility. I find system users MORE complicated to setup
Charles Marcus put forth on 6/30/2010 5:11 PM:
> On 2010-06-29 4:16 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
>> Virtual mailboxes have their place, of course, but they're overused,
>> especially at small sites. I suppose this might be in part because
>> most HOWTOs are for virtual.
>
> That's just plain silly. Virtu
On 2010-06-29 4:16 PM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> Virtual mailboxes have their place, of course, but they're overused,
> especially at small sites. I suppose this might be in part because
> most HOWTOs are for virtual.
That's just plain silly. Virtual users are extremely simple to setup, no
need for MySQ
/dev/rob0 put forth on 6/29/2010 3:16 PM:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 07:28:52AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-06-28 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> I guess this is different with virtual users than with system
>>> users? Are you using virtual or system users Charles?
>>
>> Virtual of c
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 16:16, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 07:28:52AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>> On 2010-06-28 9:05 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> > I guess this is different with virtual users than with system
>> > users? Are you using virtual or system users Charles?
>>
>> Virt
38 matches
Mail list logo
