> If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and
> rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned)
If this is the case.. then why have macros be able to be executed in
the first place? It seems that people *want* this convenience, but then
th
> > > Well if the police/government/anybody wants to eavesdrop on him that's dead easy
>for
> > > the phone company. Over here in .nl, mobile carriers are _required_ to be
>technically
> > > able to place taps. We're also country with the highest relative number of taps.
I'm sure you'll all be
> All told, Mitnick will serve another 8 months and then be freed on
> parole. Stipulations of the plea also entail that he not personally
> benefit from the incidents which lead up to his arrest (e.g., no big "book
> deal" for personal gain), and that he make restitution to the adversely
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, blip wrote:
> Isnt this the same guy that was "jailed" without being charged?
> morgan
*sigh* No, he was charged. He has spent like 4 years in prison and he's
going to get a plea bargain deal where he'll probably get 5 years, of
which he's already served 4.
Another reaso
> >From the Jargon File: (v4.0.0, 25 Jul 1996)
> feature shock /n./
> [from Alvin Toffler's book title "Future Shock"] A user's (or
> programmer's!) confusion when confronted with a package that has too
> many features and poor introductory material.
How... utterly appropriate.
scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Does anyone have a comprehensive page for qmail address filtering?
Specifically (any of these, I'm not even sure they all exist).
Bad Mail From addresses, Bad Mail To addresses, maildrop system filters,
maildrop user filters, tcpserver access lists, tcp-env a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> But what is " qmail-pipe " ? I can't find no docs on it. Thanks for the
> help guys ! ---gordie
It's there!
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNwvgRVvCesh4C4FtAQE/7wQAjMPqv6Ne3bcs2vfLq8jvoamNPD4odnMm
QPKEau+rfYGqEWKQHzK7l4A8k8V5d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Richard Shetron wrote:
> THere is a rebuttal of the test at:
> http://www.linux-hw.com/~eric/mindcraft.html
> > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
etc, yadda yadda yadda ...
http://www.excite.com/computers_and_internet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Sam wrote:
> Durham, Kenneth J writes:
> > I think im just going to go through the whole setup agian from scratch. Can
> > someone give me a good place to get documantation from start to finish to
> > get this thing up and working. I al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Well, back in the hazy dawn of time, I recall that INSTALL was all I needed
> to get Qmail running.
> Short, sweet, and to the point.
Well, I was just being... you know, myself.
The point is, to get QMAIL installed, yes, the INSTALL seems to work
- -- but
> Could all you ISP techs please respond with a good figure for sizing a
> mail account? I mean if you are going to offer mail, on average, how
> much would you allocate per client when sizing a machine to run it.
> Also, does q-mail offer features for limiting mail stored on a mailhost?
You cou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Russ went a little too far, I think. "Ability to ask questions that
> demonstrate that one has read the documentation and that include at
> least some of the relevant details" would be good enough. One can't
> expect someone to know exactly which information
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 6 May 1999, Bill Parker wrote:
> p.s. - I also believe that most of the judges who make up the 9th
> circuit court of appeals smoke crack while on the bench...
Are these guys related to the people who felt it was necessary to get
a search warrant to s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Dave just posted it. See earlier in this thread.
Right. Let me apologize to everyone. I was confused by the seemingly
too easy question/problem/issue and I was only trying to help. I'll
start a mailing list now where p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
> > >Before I do a bit of coding, has anyone written a script to identify the
> > >most recent log file and tail it, preferably switching files when the
> > >log file turns over?
> > Jeff Hayward's taildir does what you want.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> "Scott D. Yelich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What's wrong with something like: tail -f `ls -rt | tail -1`
> Doesn't notice when a new file is created, which cyclog is want to d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
> Erm, nothing. Except that this won't switch files when the log rolls
> over. `ls -rt | tail -l' will only be executed once at start up.
Right, sorry all... I was just trying to help. I didn't notice the
need to type i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> less consistent, but that's not foolproof. Echo isn't handled by the
> smtp server, it's done by the telnet client, so there's no way to
> disable it from the server side.
> -Dave
Telnet protocol allows you to turn off
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Justin Bell wrote:
> anyone get it to work on Solaris 2.5?
Not really. I've been told that my system is "seriously" hosed. that
would be news to me.
I told two people that I wouldn't say this in public... but I just
can't keep my big
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Troy Morrison wrote:
> | Segmentation fault
> | mail:/usr/local/src#
> | seg faults on me :(
> Try running "taildir " instead of
> just taildir.
> Troy
solaris 2.5.1
security [965]> gcc -L/usr/ucblib -lucb taildir.c -o taildir
securi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14 May 1999, Robin Bowes wrote:
> "Scott D. Yelich" wrote:
> > security [965]> gcc -L/usr/ucblib -lucb taildir.c -o taildir
> > security [966]> ./taildir .
> > /taildir: scandir: : No such file or directory
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> !block rant
> Seriously, Scott, yesterday you couldn't even understand the need for
> taildir, and now you're complaining you can get it to work. What's
> your angle? Jeff Hayward wrote a small utility for his own use and
> shared it with others because he th
I have not changed my system or qmail -- yet, my qmail has
stopped working. I'm seeing that I can connect to qmail-popup
and give the user USER and pass PASS commands, but it always
tells me that the authorization failed. I have tested the same
user and password combinations with FTP and they
> > /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d ./ &
blah!
my previously working checkpassword just stopped working. How strange.
I'm sure it's something other than checkpassword, but since I can log
in, I wonder what it could be that is making checkpassword fail. Has
anyone else experienc
Is the list slow today?
I have a system where qmail-popup has been working fine...
inetd sez:
pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup
qmail-popup spy.org /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d
Maildir
Now whenever I try to use pop, even with an account with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 18 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> This is completely unfair.
No it't not. It's the truth.
> Calling qmail "non-conforming" because it has its own
> bounce format is like calling Eric Allman "non-conforming" just
> because he's gay.
Eric Allman's GAY?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
> Antje Koschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >how can I prevent that multiple copies of a mail addressed to several aliases
> >pointing to the same user are delivered? One copy is just fine.
> You'd have to assemble a meta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 May 1999, John R. Levine wrote:
> >Actually, I was just asking why couldn't qmail supress dupes on local
> >addresses.
> The real reason is because it's the wrong tool.
Right. This is the answer that I believe the most. I'm still straining
to try to t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich writes:
> > Wha? Why so? Sendmail supresses dup addresses before sending. It's a
> > very nice feature.
> Scott, you really should go review the list archive before you open
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Any help would be appreciated:
(1) Does anyone have a setup where sendwhale is on a client machine
and needs to forward/relay through a qmail machine? I can't seem to
get Dj and DM to make sendwhale happy. I either get MX goes back to
DM or Dj or I get Dj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> On Jun 7, 9:39pm, Dax Kelson wrote:
> > Subject: Re: an MX record shouldn't contain an IP address, right?
> > Lenny Mastrototaro said once upon a time (Mon, 7 Jun 1999):
> do other MTA's also allow for incorrect MX records?
> is there a good reason that som
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: warning: can't verify hostname:
gethostbyname(cobalt) failed
Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: refused connect from 216.221.160.30
dig -x output...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR cobalt.
(1) Did anyone answer this? What should be done for a site that has
multiple PTRs -- as this appears to confuse qmail -- see (a).
(2) What do people do for sites where tcp-env refuses to allow a
connect -- but which seem to attempt to reconnect quite often -- see (b).
(a)
;; ANSWER SECTION:
Perhaps I missed the responses regarding the following the first time
they went out to the list -- and if so, I'm sorry...
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 08:51:12AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > (1) Did anyone answer this? What should
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> I dunno about you but when I ask a question in a public forum I usually
> actively look for responses. To not even make a cursory check before asking
> again is rude to everyone on this list, and especially the people who
> responded the first time.
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
> > And why SHOULD anyone care about your hacker troubles, and your lack
> > of a firewall, and your overwhelming email traffic? Would you like
> > someone to read your email to you, or build you a firewall?
> Well, I certainly do. He seemed to describe al
> There are appropriate places for discussion of those topics, and they
> exist so you dont have to discuss those on lists where it is
> inappropriate.
Well, now we certainly are off topic. John -- I talk in many forums.
It seems each has its own designs on what is appropriate and what is
not.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> Nobody was called an idiot for their choice of topic. Nobody was called
> an idiot in order to end a conversation. The reason someone got called
> an idiot is that he was acting like an idiot.
Call me an idiot... I don't care. I appreciate all th
I'm really getting tired of this lists hostility. I thought perhaps it
might have just been me or it might be that some people here are on the
metal-rag but I'm not sure I can stand it any longer. I assume
there will be an exodus soon.
I have already seen people prove their ignorance and
Has anyone else noticed anything similar to the following on this list:
(1) DJB writes his software his way and he doesn't give a sh!t about
anyone else's opinion when he is set in his? Even if he is wrong? Even
if he has been proven to be wrong? Even if he's being obstinant,
apparently, for
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Chris Garrigues wrote:
> Lucky me. I'm going to be away from my email for a week.
> I hope Scott and Adam and whoever else has been filling my mailbox
> with shit will be done with their ravings by the time I get back.
I'm sorry you feel my questions and issues with qmail
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
> > Shouldn't you first learn something about unix? You could probably do
> > well with unix for dummies (as someone else already pointed out).
Alex, you have to understand... this list is all about gods, wizards,
and pissing contests. If you're not perf
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> > the RFC, it will just state something like "MX records can't point to
> > CNAMES" -- and never really state why this is so.
> You were given the answer to this two days ago and didn't bother to read
> it. Russ just answered you again, let's see i
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
> Threats of law suits
> should I elaborate?
rcpthosts... need I say more?
... anyway, wait until you get some idiot who wants to sue you because
you are no longer an open relay.
Scott
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Alex Miller wrote:
> In your negative response you wrote GFY.
> That was your PUBLIC response here on this list.
> Your PRIVATE email to me regarding making the
> web site was hardly "Good For You" and you know it.
> There are two kinds of people. Honest people and dishonest
m ignoreant,
so be it, but that's not what you said.
> Scott D. Yelich writes:
> Dan writes his software the best way. Please enlighten us as to where
> he is wrong. You seem to have all the answers, please let us know.
I don't have all the answers... in fact, I'm looking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Unless you have Windblows boxes on your network, you have nothing to worry
> about. In Unix, you have to be root in order to sniff packets.
er, is this supposed to be funny?
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBODvt3R4PLs9vCOqdAQEwE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
What command would people use ... using stock qmail
to take all mail coming in from a certain address
and do something withith?
not really a procmail... just say, send "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
is sending in mail -- and I want to send only that mail to
another addre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
another mail "forwarding" question/issue:
I have registered yelich.{com,net,org} and I want to use qmail to accept
mail on one machine.. where you can set up a domain plus host such as
"tommy.yelich.com" where I can then use a .qmail-default so that all
mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Which most of the English speaking world would interpret as "My mother
> can't do that", possibly with an implied "(but just about anyone else
> can)". This type of idiom leads to ambiguity, and is a barrier to
> communication--its only purpose is to be cute.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Paul Trippett wrote:
> But for Us European people EST stands for Eastern Summer Time
> and what is UTC and where is the time zone for that ?
OIC, JIC, I use UTP at work at UPC which is in CET, ETC.
I thought UTC was GMT... is that not corr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> So my point is, unless you like reading silly analyses of grammatical
> constructs in the qmail list, you should be careful to express
> yourself unambiguously. -Dave
Oh, puhleeze do teach me how to be a pedantic asshole
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:29:03AM -0500,
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Wilson Fletcher wrote:
> > > I ried to send to wilson@[203.26.11.154] but it failed. Can someone tell me why ?
> > B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Jason Haar wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:46:59AM +0100, Magnus Bodin wrote:
> > | forward "${DEFAULT}@yy"
> Absolutely what I was after :-)
> Bit of a ba%*tard to find that one in the man pages...
> Yippee - can finish the job now... :-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I'm sure people are going to jump on this, but please understand
that I am serious and I am not trolling.
Does anyone have a URL or reference for a simple smtp server or decent
(and brief!) documentation that could be used to create an smtp server?
If you hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> >Please do not flame me or tell me to read rfc 821.
> Wouldn't dream of it.
>
> Of course, if you tell us a little bit more about your needs or why
> existing smtp servers aren't acceptable, you'd get more useful
> inform
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Dan Barber wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a good web interface for qmail with
> maildirs, virtualhosts and sql backend which includes an
> addressbook and is relatively easy to configure?
and one that doesn't require 15 other small packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Reuben King wrote:
> Well, wouldn't you just like your cake and eat it too... :-)
Hey, I didn't ask for DOCUMENTATION did I?
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOM/mSVpGPE+AF6qBAQHPpAP+PVST+hhNVPcMASUnpuubqzp7Bzl28
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Sigh.
Here we go again.
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBONKLGFpGPE+AF6qBAQHJWAQAtRxevMTwJMYbGw1xerYKgd7UMDgZagGF
KTILWlFSQNElBDc7lOdwTR0xORfrOxn7jyNvOWSEGEsQxrRUB2LUFxpk0XjNi3bN
fzicmZR/GE6PzWbuW8PNrJpD2xeD854nw7iVDOEPAKAiKCSlFUoQ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
We all know the qmail documentation is perfect.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOORj81pGPE+AF6qBAQFChgP/ctdvtjCI4sEZSrMpjgVbunb8VX2y3Dzz
kTegfYBUs6v95NLoPCyK+npe+f+FCVwD0wy3EX655ACC29HCpxeuMxaT5U5MpC8F
Ywkg4h3uXZ0B+wKYc03zyQ1XLOfDmlnFUOkV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(1) Is it better to write an SMTPd that is strict to the RFCs or
lenient? That is, where does one go to settle disputes -- or is it
better to sit back and miss mail due to differences in interpreting
the RFCs? Ie: if an smtpd accepts bare linefeeds, etc., is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I received a response regarding the CR/LF issue -- but it wasn't really
an "answer" to the question[s] that I asked. But that's ok, at least it
wasn't a flame.
Anyway, connect up to your favorite MTA. Issue:
mail from: blah
mail xxz: blah
rcpt to: blah
rcp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about my 9
line PGP signature. clue.
(2) I have already seen html email that has jabbascript that "decodes"
the content of the message. I assume this w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Chris Green wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> Well I have to admit I have some sympathy with him there, I'd much
> prefer that people *didn't* post PGP signed messages where i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Kent Nilsen wrote:
> The problem is that these viruses are based on user
> stupidity/unawareness. A script attached to a mail sent to a Linux
> system would do just as much damage to files the user has full
> access to. If a user doublecli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Wasn't it claimed that 2.53 was safe -- only earlier versions
(alpha/beta?) were at risk? Seems like they should just release
another version to lessen the confusion.
Scott
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOSwjblpGPE+AF6qBAQEiZwQAvICxK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 26 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Claus has been attaching a signature to his messages which looks like
> an attachment to a borken mail reader, but not to any compliant mail
> reader.
I wouldn't even know about this if it weren't for nick's messag
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Don't use pine. Use mutt.
why?
Does mutt support PGP and compressed mailboxes/folders?
Scott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
207.99.50.35 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 553 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list (#5.7.1)
Giving up on 207.99.50.35.
Amusing.
Scott
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:12:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: Scott D.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> As the author doesn't even spell "qmail" correctly, I think it would be
> safe to assume his opinion isn't particularly well researched.
Can you give me a list or any specifics on where the "fuzziness" is?
Scott
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:
> And would you kindly restrict your line width to something ~72
> characters? Thanks.
oh, please... please publically flame me too!
Scott
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> mount?
ok, ok
you're all gonna make me pull out a unix(1) story
that I wrote over a decade ago
the problem is.. so many of the commands
could be taken in a sexual way...
let me find it...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 09:35:06AM +1000, Brett Randall wrote:
> > > strace /dev/gf0
> > No, I think you've got it wrong. I think its strace /dev/gf6 at the
> > moment...
> for i in /dev/gf*; do
> touch $i
> strip $i
>
How does one make a virtual user for an address at a "locals" site?
I can make them easily for virtusers. Stupid qmail doens't say
"which" maildir it can't cd to... so there's very little chance of
actually using that vague error.
Scott
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Robin S. Socha wrote:
> Because you're stupid? But that's just one reason, Jay, so there's still
> hope. Anyway:
man I love this list...
Scott
ps: cc:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Jon Rust wrote:
> Just got a call from an angry MSN user.
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_512791,00.html
> jon
It's too bad that companies can't set up two systems... one for people
who don't want to receive this spam crap and one for customers who lack
Was the issue about an MX pointing to a CNAME ever resolved?
Scott
On 1 Dec 2000, Matt Brown wrote:
> The only problem with doing that is the clueful admins with clueless
> management who force everyone to use the Corporate Email Solution, ie
> Outlook. Not me right now, but it was me in my last job.
Agreed. At my last consulting job... it took over 3 weeks to
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
> Dan to make the new version - perhaps made with cooperation with
"Dan" and "cooperate" on the same line...
> all peoples, who have created useful patches and additional softwares,
useful additions becoming standard? that'll be the day.
See, the
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Piotr Kasztelowicz wrote:
> This should be Dan's decision. I don't apply to sugest, but
> I suppose there are group of Dan's friends, group of advanced
> users, who known very good qmail as well as Dan personaly.
> Qmail is the best known by me MUA, so I will by happy, if
> it
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Keith, Yeung Wai Kin wrote:
> don't open attachment emanuel.exe from "funky gao"
Why not? *clickclick* Did I miss something?
Scott
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would guess at around $10,000 for the installation, and then around
> $1000/month ?
I'll do it for $7500 and $750 a month. Whatabargain!
Scott
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Alberto Dainotti wrote:
> I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but
> I've read the documentation and I'm missing something..
> In "REMOVE.binmail":
> -
> 3. If the binmail binary was /bin/mail, make sure th
Has anyone seen my umbrella? I think I left it here somewhere
I shall make no further comment.
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:02:14AM +0300, Okan CIMEN wrote:
> > *** DO NOT OPEN THE ATTACHMENT***
> > Our e-mail users receive lots of e-mails with no subject nor from adress but
> > just an attachment. Below is an example I have received before. As you
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Jamyn wrote:
> >On 28-May-2001 David T. Ashley wrote:
> > > This is a very subjective matter, but the tone of the
> > > automatically-generated messages seems too friendly.
> Every now and then, someone sends a reply back to the
> MAILER-DAEMON with "Thanks" or "OK I'll re-s
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> > "Shut Up and Go Away"
You're not gonna SUGA down yer comments, are ya?
Why not pour a little SUGA on this thread?
Scott
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Dave Sill wrote:
> There are others, but these are easiest, most common, and most
> effective techniques. I suggest printing off a copy and taping it next
> to your screen.
It says my print error occurred. How to fix?
Scott
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
> Sometimes when I send mail to different people a few messages
> are coming back to me as not sent. The reason is I guess everytime
> the same (although the qmail's messages differ a little bit).
> And these qmail's notes are like these two:
> Con
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I still await the days when one can post a legitimate question to a
> list, without receiving a barrage of out of context messages with
> personal opinions, and RTFM a**hole, especially when they send them to
> the list. Perhaps this
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Leslie Bester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Otherwise, I would really appreciate anyone who can provide me with relevant
> information (minus the flames, and non-answer yielding responses) (Send
> those off-list)
oh, and that's another thing these days... those who give you an a
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 12:55:27PM -0500, Steven Rice wrote:
> > > opposed to just A records?? I have found that qmail seems to have a
> > > problem when it can't resolve the A record even though the MX is fully
> > > resolveable to an IP...
> > Every
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 10 September 2000 at 21:14:31 -0600
> > The favorite is always:
> > Q: I would like to do "XYZ"
> > A: WHY do you want to do "XYZ"
> > Who ca
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > ok, I can't resist:
> > "WHY" ?
> 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
> 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> again resolving the C
btw: this isn't flame bait... if it's too off topic, since no one else
is participating, I'd be happy to discuss these things in private
emails.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> Well, Fortran's rules for indexing come from the same teapot.
Yes, and we all know how much attention every
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
> -people generally stop taking scott seriously.
no... I simply wonder why it seems only the qmail camp seems to serious
about insisting that sometimes vague RFCs should be adhered to s
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you're serious, the answer is that some people view that adherance
> to standards is important even if it seems to temporarily hamper
> interoperability. "Temporarily"? I'm talking the long-term view
> of the Internet not the next couple of years.
Is this offsubject?
>Note that the algorithm to delete irrelevant RRs breaks if LOCAL has
>a alias and the alias is listed in the MX records for REMOTE. (E.g.
>REMOTE has an MX of ALIAS, where ALIAS has a CNAME of LOCAL). This
>can be avoided if aliases are never used in the dat
Dave -- your message was great. I would hope that there would be
more like it on the list in the future.
I'll add one thing to the list, if I may be so bold, is a little bit
about approaching problem solving in a unix environment, remember, it's
usually PATH, PERMISSION
If linuxpeople is a ne
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo