On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Simon J Mudd wrote:
> sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
>
>> For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
>> to find:
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
>
> Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't s
> > For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
> > to find:
> > postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
> > postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
>
> Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update.
Thanks a bunch, Simon.
--Brian
> sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
>
>> For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
>> to find:
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
>> postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
>
> Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update.
>
> Simon
>
>
Thank you S
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
> For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
> to find:
> postfix-2.6.0-1.src.rpm and
> postfix-2.6.0-1.rhel5.x86_64.rpm
Updated to 2.6.1 as I hadn't seen Wietse's 2.6.1 update.
Simon
sjm...@pobox.com (Simon J Mudd) writes:
> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely
> to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these
> rpms I build.
For those interested I've updated the packages and you should be able
to find:
postfix-2.6.0
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com (Victor Duchovni) writes:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 08:38:54PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> > Others ask why not build from source. The simplicity of a single upgrade
> > procedure and reproducibility make this more favourable the more boxes
> > you have to man
> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely
> to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms
> I build.
I too am interested and would like to try it. I have never used
anything beyond the vendor supplied version of Postfix but am tired of
waitin
> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely
> to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms
> I build.
+1 for me as well, Simon. I appreciate your work and have used your RPMs
for years to keep my mail servers and filters up to date.
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 20:38:54 PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> > I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am
> > likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in
> > these rpms I build.
>
> +1 for me, thanks if you find the time!
"2.7 snapshot rpms for C
On Mon, May 18, 2009 20:38:54 PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote:
> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am
> likely to respond more if there are people who show an interest in
> these rpms I build.
+1 for me, thanks if you find the time!
Marco
--
Your own civil rights and th
On Mon, May 18, 2009 14:48:12 PM -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> I, for one, would urge the more sophisticated users, who need the
> latest release, to learn how to use/build source RPMs, and build the
> official Postfix release via source RPM that resembles the vendor's
> support source RPM, but
On Tue, May 19, 2009 6:41 am, Dan Horne wrote:
>>
>> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely
>> to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these rpms I
>> build.
>>
> [DH] +1 for interest. I have begun building mail servers on multiple
> VPS's usin
>
> I'll see if I can make some time to build some 2.6 rpms, but am likely
> to respond more if there are people who show an interest in these
> rpms I build.
>
[DH] +1 for interest. I have begun building mail servers on multiple
VPS's using CentOS and I use your RPM's all the time. I'd be very
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 08:38:54PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote:
> Others ask why not build from source. The simplicity of a single upgrade
> procedure and reproducibility make this more favourable the more boxes
> you have to manage. For those of us who have hundres of boxes to manage
> this makes l
lis...@newnanutilities.org ("Brian Collins") writes:
> > I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to
> > get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
>
> Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from
> them with lots of options. However, he's a busy
Didn't get the message you replied to, so I'm bolting it on to yours.
mouss wrote:
Stefan Jakobs a écrit :
On Thursday, 14. Mai 2009 09:54:56 Corey Chandler wrote:
MacShane, Tracy wrote:
Also,
installing non-RPM packages can obviously cause clashes when installing
other RH u
Stefan Jakobs a écrit :
> On Thursday, 14. Mai 2009 09:54:56 Corey Chandler wrote:
>> MacShane, Tracy wrote:
>
>>> The OS administrators do not permit GCC and
>>> devel libraries on the SMTP servers I maintain (and fair enough).
>> Nor should they-- this is what a staging environment is for. Buil
Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
>
> Sorry to hear that but in the mean time you can grab .src.rpm for a
> prior release, the tarball for the current release and modify the
> .spec file to reflect this.
I've been doing this for our smtp servers for some time. The suse
factory postfix srpm compiles nicel
> Is there a down side to using a 3rd party RPM on RHEL / CentOS over the
> packages version of 2.3.
Nope. They work fine. I have several CentOS/RHEL/Fedora mail filters and
back-end servers running Postfix built from Simon's source RPMs. You can pick
and choose at build-time what options you
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
* Brian Collins :
I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to
get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from
them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not alway
* Brian Collins :
> > I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to
> > get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
>
> Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from
> them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get
> to th
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Carlos Williams wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Brian Collins
> wrote:
>>> I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to
>>> get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
>>
>> Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and bina
> Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the
> distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix
> source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches
> dropped into it?
Because those of us who run package-based systems find things work better
> I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to
> get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
Simon Mudd picks up the releases and makes good source and binary RPMs from
them with lots of options. However, he's a busy man and does not always get
to them right after release. A kin
On May 14, 2009, at 12:25, Barney Desmond wrote:
Sure; as people have already said, some vendors (cough, Redhat) don't
really keep up to date. I haven't checked all their release channels
on offer, but the core set of packages only includes Postfix 2.3.3.
*And* it doesn't come with mysql/pgsql
Hi,
On May 14, 2009, at 01:07, Just E. Mail wrote:
I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where
to get RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
The SRPM from Fedora should compile fine on at least EL4 and EL5. I
suggest you download it and build it yourself instead of downloa
On May 14, 2009, at 02:03, Victor Duchovni wrote:
Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the
distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix
source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches
dropped into it?
A bit off topic already b
2009/5/14 Victor Duchovni :
> If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
> distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer
> supported version of Postfix.
>
> If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some
> random stranger'
On Thursday, 14. Mai 2009 09:54:56 Corey Chandler wrote:
> MacShane, Tracy wrote:
> > The OS administrators do not permit GCC and
> > devel libraries on the SMTP servers I maintain (and fair enough).
>
> Nor should they-- this is what a staging environment is for. Build it
> on a staging box, tes
MacShane, Tracy wrote:
Yes, there is unfortunately such a need, because RHEL5 is only up to
Postfix 2.3, and we require functionality from Postfix 2.5 and up
(destination_rate_delay).
This leads to an interesting question all its own:
I'm running the same Postfix config I built years ag
Victor Duchovni wrote:
Yes, some of the better distribution supported patches are not ill-advised.
But occasionally, one gets something along the lines of the Debian OpenSSL
fiasco (notably the Debian *Postfix* patches have been pretty good, and
historically RedHat was adding rather questionable
Not only am I not competent to install Postfix, I should learn to type.
Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote:
>
>
>> I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get
>> RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
>>
>
> If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
> distrib
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Victor Duchovni
> Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2009 9:04 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Postfix-2.6.0 RPM
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 a
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:26:34PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get
> > > RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
> >
> > If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
> > distribution servers, wait until
Victor Duchovni:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote:
>
> > I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get
> > RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
>
> If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
> distribution servers,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Just E. Mail wrote:
> I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get
> RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
distribution servers, wait until *your distribution*
37 matches
Mail list logo
