t;
> Andrew Beebe
> Maine Web Design
> RR 2 Box 363 A
> Bridgton, ME 04009
> (207) 647-8411
> http://www.datamaine.com
--
"Death to the demon Mark Luntzel! Death to the evil vi!" -fn
./configure --work-or-i-keel-you
qmail-pop3d on my linux box by:
tcpserver -v -R 0 pop-3 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup mail.amberjack.net \
/bin/checkpasswd /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d maildir 2>&1 | \
/var/qmail/bin/splogger pop3d &
I do a "ps aux" and it lists the process as done.
Any help w
ue. But as always, the best thing you can do is
conduct a fairly
rigourous performance analysis of the system to determine just what sort
of demands
are currently being placed on it and what resources are likely to be
totally consumed
first.
Mark.
Hi
I seem to be having probelms with my mail
exchanger.
If I send e-mails with large attachments they
seem to disappear.
I have created the file
/var/qmail/control/databytes and set 500 but still no luck.
Does anyone have any suggestions ?
Thanks
Mark
Have any idea what the problem could be?
Thanks
Mark
no problem.
Now that I changed to vchkpw it keeps on exiting.
Any ideas
Many Thanks
Mark
looking for an interface similar to that of
majorcool, where most admin and changes can be done. I have had a look at
ml-sub and ez-sub but they dont have enough functionality.
Can anyone help ?
Thanks
Mark
/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop (which will stop qmail)
If you are still struggling then mail me back.
I'll send you a copy of my start script and also give you more detailed
instructions on how to enter the script in its different run levels.
Cheers
Mark
other 1.2 meg file it shows the
error of databytes exceeded. If the setting is 1.8 meg, why does it give that
error ?
Any clues ?
Thanks
Mark
" (1.2 meg) again and not work ?
Mark
e it tries to send the large file attachement ( 2 meg ) with
it ... which would of course exceeds the databytes limit.
What do you think ?
Mark
He needs to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask for an RFC2317 style reverse
delegation.
Regards,
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:31:22AM -0400, Jan Knepper wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > > I do run bind and set DNS up fo
message
after it has been retrieved.) Has anyone implemented an add-on to
qmail-pop3d that does this?
--
Mark Sidell
Chief Programmer
Forte Agent
(This is RH 7.0 running xinetd with librwap support.)
--
Mark Sidell
Chief Programmer
Forte Agent
How do I get qmail, running on mail.sidell.org to forward mail
addressed to @lyris.sidell.org?
Sorry if I'm being dense.
--
Mark Sidell
Chief Programmer
Forte Agent
e qmail smtp daemon listening on
one IP address, and the lyris daemon listening on another.
Apparently, qmail-remote complains if it looks up a destination host
address and discovers that it is one of the IPs assigned to the host
on which qmail-remote is running. The workaround is to add an entry
to smtproutes that maps the host name to an IP address.
--
Mark
ransformations of the
envelope address.
Thanks for your help.
--
Mark Sidell
Chief Programmer
Forte Agent
, all
> will be fine (I know, I'm doing it...)
I found that I needed to modify the alias line slightly, to remove the
local user name that is prefixed to the address:
| forward "${LOCAL#*-}"@otherhost.foo.com
That way, [EMAIL PROTECTED] will get sent as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] inste
How can I configure qmail to accept mail for mail.domaina.com and
mail.domainb.com?
Nothing in the FAQ could be found.
Thanks,
Mark
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 09:17:50AM +0200, Piotr Kasztelowicz allegedly wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, Alan Brown's activities are not illegal - the ORBS
> > relaytester runs in The Netherlands, where this is not illegal by any
> > law.
>
> Maybe in Netherla
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:14:00PM -0400, Mark Douglas allegedly wrote:
> No, I can make this patch cleanly on a linux based system no problem, but
> when I try the same approach on the solaris system, it doesn't work. Was the
> test you're doing from a solaris system? At this
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 12:05:57PM -0500, Virginia Chism allegedly wrote:
> I am still a newbie and unable to find a lot of things I think my qmail
> should have. Some things I can find, but not where they should be. At any
> rate, when suggestions come up as quoted below, I try them out and oft
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:54:33PM +0200, Felix von Leitner allegedly wrote:
> I recently did a few updates to my diet libc
> (http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/) and it can now compile and link qmail.
> Since the diet libc can also compile and link openssl, the STARTTLS
> patch also works.
>
> What's
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 07:36:53PM +0200, Jörgen Persson allegedly wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm not all comfortable with this...
>
> There's been 4 similar reports of qmail-remote not behaving properly to
> this list during the last month.
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/200
> What are the probabilities of the Sendmail server being the one causing
> the problems? What if the mail admin of mg.hk5.outblaze.com has used
> some sort of patch that is causing qmail-remote's to hang? Has anyone
> communicated with outblaze.com's postmaster?
There is nothing a remote system
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 04:39:25PM -0700, David Lowe allegedly wrote:
> Mark et. al. -
>
> It *is* possible, though, for qmail-remote to move slowly enough that it
> appears to hang (yes, even for hours or days). timeoutremote applies to
> every read() and write() - in the very w
> processed those 1500 messages in less than 30 minutes. However, it left
> behind another handfull of stuck qmail-remote processes. Other messages
> were undeliverable and left in the queue, and still others were sent back to
> sender with permanent errors.
What do you mean by "stuck"? Do you
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 03:51:18PM -0400, Yevgeniy Miretskiy allegedly wrote:
> One more time,
>
> I did tcpdump and strace on stuck qmail-remote for over an hour.
> strace shows that qmail-remote is stuck on: 'read(3', and tcpdump shows
> that nothing comes in.
One more time. Then it's an OS bu
> > Is it possible that some external devices s.a.
> > switch/router/firewall/anything could be causing this problem?
>
> Yes, very possble. Some firewalls do "transparent" SMTP or POP proxying, and
> there have been many bugs in such implementations.
No. Regardless of what the other end does,
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:11:21PM -0400, Yevgeniy Miretskiy allegedly wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:47:16PM +0000, Mark wrote:
> > Then it's an OS bug.
> >
> > qmail-remote only gets to the read() if the OS (via select() ) says
> > that the read will
> As far as I can tell, this is a problem between qmail-remote and the kernel.
Correct.
> This is happening on multiple operating systems, so that leads me to believe
> that this is not an OS bug.
But many OSes share TCP/IP implementations or mis-interpretations of
the protocol. Many coders of
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 09:05:00AM -0700, Greg White allegedly wrote:
> I think we may have red-herringed on the OS thing -- if RH6.2, as
> deployed, had this sort of problem, I think we would have run across it
> before this, no? The inclusion of a FreeBSD-4.2-STABLE in the mix seems
> to nix a R
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 03:11:59PM -0400, Russell Nelson allegedly wrote:
> Greg White writes:
> > I think we may have red-herringed on the OS thing -- if RH6.2, as
> > deployed, had this sort of problem, I think we would have run across it
> > before this, no?
>
> Hmmm I wonder. I could
> Perhaps something like a "maxlifetime" control file for qmail-remote and
(Serendipity strikes again - I just posted sample code for this).
> qmail-smtpd? At process startup, set an alarm for X seconds -- if the ALRM is
> received, abort the connection as gracefully as possible (i.e. try to se
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Jos Backus allegedly wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:58:49PM +0000, Mark wrote:
> > It's a bummer that ktrace is like that on FreeBSD. It doesn't show the
> > *current* system call that the process is sitting on. Conversely,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:58:19PM -0400, Reid Sutherland allegedly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to be able to suspend a POP3 account without changing the
> client's password. Is there anything I can do to the home directory or
> Maildir to accomplish this?
>
> What I'm doing the for incom
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:12:44PM -0600, Bruce Guenter allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:09:40PM -0600, Roger Walker wrote:
> > Thanks, Peter and Charles. Looks like I'll have to script a
> > solution that telnets to port 25 on the remote host and issues 10,000+
> > (650,000+ actu
I can't send from a pop client a message to someone outside my box. It
says that the recipient <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is not acceptable to my SMTP
server.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (local user) -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (outside user)
---
relaying was the problem
Thanks for the help
-
Mark Lundquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
lient machine is on a OC-3
connection. Telnet to the server has no delay on connecting.
Server:
RedHat 5.2
qmail-1.03
Client:
Eudora Pro 4.0
Anyone have ideas on what to check???
-
Mark Lundquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 11:59:20AM -0600, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:27:26 -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> >
> > >I'm not sure what they think he could do with a cell phone that he couldn't
> > >do with a regular phone?
> >
> > Cell phones have 64-bi
Hello,
I've looked at the FAQs, the websites, and searched the qmail list archive
for information on user masquerading and am a bit stumped. What I'm looking
for is a fast way to automatically rewrite the From address for local users
to their alias.
So if I use QMail as my SMTP server and I send
>> 1. I want all incoming emails of drudge to be REDIRECTED to grub. grub
>Put all your domains in rcpthosts, and ':grub.paragon-software.com' (mind
>the colon
Sigh. This is wrong.
He only wants mail to the drudge domain forwarded, not all incoming mails
that happen to hit the druge machine
Hello,
Some people on this list were discussing a new imapd for qmail Maildir
format. When I downloaded the rpm I found:
1. The patches in the RPM try to patch qmail-4.1.BETA.
2. Some of them do patch (or even partially patch) qmail-4.5.BETA (and then
partially patch 4.1.BETA)
Should I simply
At 04:15 PM Wednesday 3/31/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hello,
>I built qmail V1.03 on a Solaris 2.5.1 (SPARC) machine.
>All went well, but when I tried to do some tests, a strange behaviour
>appeared. I was successfully able to do a local-to-local delivery running
>the following command as "pv"
At 01:39 PM Wednesday 3/31/99, B.G. Mahesh wrote:
>+ >> 1. I want all incoming emails of drudge to be REDIRECTED to grub. grub
>+
>+ >Put all your domains in rcpthosts, and ':grub.paragon-software.com' (mind
>+ >the colon
>+
>+ Sigh. This is wrong.
>+
>+ He only wants mail to the drudge domain
>> >I checked and rechecked my inetd.conf and the line that I am using is
>> >
>> >smtpstream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env
>> >/var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd
>> >
>> >with everything on one line..
>>
>> I can't believe no one else has pointed this out yet, but I'm almost
>> po
Change the patch so that after the open, do a write.
write(fd, "0", 1);
will do it.
At 08:37 PM Wednesday 3/31/99, Matt Simerson wrote:
>
>So guys (Mark, Bernd, or Russ), what do you think? Is there anything that
>you'd like me to try to get this working? I'd
At 11:16 PM Thursday 4/1/99, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>I have just converted all of our 8000+ users to maildir format. We
>don't use qmail but we do use maildir folders using our own MDA.
>The mail is delivered in /var/spool/mail/username/
>Now, with a bit of thinking I found out that this i
Hi,
New incomming Mail is in $HOME/Maildir.
I want Procmail to sort the messages from $HOME/Maildir into destinated
directories.
When I used Exim I started Procmail with the following script:
# ! /bin/sh
ORGMAIL=/var/spool/mail/mark
if cd $HOME &&
test -s
At 09:01 AM 1/6/99 -, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>I've sent a response to bugtraq explaining how to identify the uid that
>filled up the queue.
>
>My message also explains a much more powerful series of four attacks
>against all MTAs, including the IBM Secure Mailer. These attacks can be
>carried
mmand with same results.
-}
-} Please reply to news group and my email address.
-}
-} TIA
-} Bob
-}
-}
-}
--
-mark
its stuff like this that bugs me, about rpm. and its why I always compile from
source.yeah, I gave you the wrong answer. my apologies.
On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 12:50:12PM -0500, bob wrote:
-} --force command results in same error message.
-}
-} Bob
-}
-} Mark Luntzel wrote:
-}
-} > try
Ug. You're invoking qmail-queue for each recipient? Is that necessary?
Most of your system resources are probably spend putting individual messages
into the queue and deleting individual messages as they're delivered.
Try this as an alternative injection script:
(
sed s/^/Bcc: / What speed sho
At 04:06 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
>different messages.
That doesn't gel with your original post of:
>> >sed s//$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1<
>> /tmp/address
Which means you h
And er, you send this on a regular basis and that's the only unique aspect
of the email?
If that is the case, then my apologies. You are right. My earlier suggestion
does not apply if you need to put the recipient address in the body of the
email.
At 09:21 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 10:19 AM Friday 4/9/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>qmail-inject is too slow. I've been using qmail-queue instead.
Only because you're doing an invocation per recipient! I'm guessing, but I'm
almost certain the qmail-qstat will show some interesting numbers.
Particularly "messages in queue but
At 04:27 PM Friday 4/9/99, Sam wrote:
>Dave Sill writes:
>
>> >> When you're sending messages, how many qmail-remotes are running?
>> >
>> >About 90-130. 255 if I stop delivery for a little while and then restart
>> >it. To me that means that the machine can send faster then I can get the
>> >mess
>>>4 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
>>>have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
>>
>>Incorrect. This is precisely how a "serious mailing-list" does it. Namely
>>ezmlm. Admittedly via qmail-queue, but the queue insertion costs and
>>sequences are the same.
>
>I didn't g
At 10:32 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>: Above and beyond the standard reporting programs -qstat and -qread, I
>: haven't heard of anything especially. The question is, how do you want to
>: constrain users?
>:
>: Is it X message per day, X messages in the queue at any one time, X
At 08:42 AM Tuesday 4/13/99, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
>
>> >> >qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
>> >> >to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
>> >>
>> >> No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail
http://www.focalmail.com/
--
Y2K - We're all gonna die.
>But when I send from an account in other server (a webmail free service)
>to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following bounce:
>
>---
>The original message was received at Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:45:46 -0300
>(EST)
> from [200.246.7
At 07:37 PM Tuesday 4/13/99, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>Something occurred to me:
>
>Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
>>
>> But when I send from an account in other server (a webmail free service)
>> to [EMAIL PROTECTED], I get the following bounce:
>>
>> >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTE
At 02:13 PM 1/20/99 -0800, Kai MacTane wrote:
>Text written by Joe Garcia at 04:58 PM 1/20/99 -0500:
>>How do I limit the size of messages going outbound and/or inbound?
>
>Use the control/databytes file. "man qmail-smtpd" for details.
Which helps incoming, but outbound requires a different solut
>I am running into some strange qmail behavior.
>I have configured qmail under tcpserver.
>
>Queues are permanently stuck and messages keep
>accruing in the queue. When the machine is rebooted,
>tcpserver starts, apparently qmail also does, but
>qmail dies.
Apparently? You don't know? What inte
>One word comes to mind when I hear "NFS" and "mail" in the same
>breath... Ick.
>
>I admit I do not have any experience with qmail specifically in
>this area, or even any with IRIX in this area (my IRIX
>experience lies elsewhere), but the one time I was at a site
>that delivered mail into an NF
At 12:51 PM Wednesday 4/14/99, Bart Grubb wrote:
>
> I am running qmail on machine who's sole purpose is sending remote email.
> Each message contains unique text as ordered by the user and generated from a
> database. The email is queuing much faster than it is sending over the DS3
> WAN conne
ppropriate
select()
In practice I'm told that some select() implementations are buggy in this
regard and may simply return "writable" if a single byte will fit. I have no
direct evidence of this though.
Regards.
At 11:12 PM Wednesday 4/14/99, Richard Letts wrote:
>On Wed, 14
At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
>On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
>>
>>Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few da
In general, no. You would need to wrapper qmail-queue to implement your own
version of quotas.
At 03:22 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>: Since we're on the subject of speed recently, is there a way limit the
>size of
>: the message queue in qmail?
>
>I forgot to mention another reas
At 03:57 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Matthew Harrell wrote:
>Mark Delany was overheard saying:
>: In general, no. You would need to wrapper qmail-queue to implement your own
>: version of quotas.
>
>Okay, and I'm not saying this is a good idea, but if I try it is there a good
&
At 01:42 PM Friday 4/16/99, Peter Samuel wrote:
>FYI
>
>I attempted to go to www.qmail.org but fat fingers sent me to
>www.qmail.com. This site is selling its mailing services under the
>ForeverMail banner.
And as for www.qmail.net...
whois shows that qmail.com was registered after the first bet
At 11:12 PM Friday 4/16/99, Robin Bowes wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was digging around on the qmail web-page when I came across the
>announcement of Bruce Guenter's mini-qmail implementation "nullmailer"
>which is described as having "...a queue for more reliablity".
>
>What is meant by "more reliable" in th
>> It's not relevant to your setup. There is some question as to whether a
>> local queue is more reliable than a remote queue accessible via qmqpc.
>
>Can you give an example of when it might be relevant?
Mainly command-line based UA's that don't check the exit code of the mail
submission progr
ually studied the details of the pipe arrangements
between -send and -[lr]spawn, so this may be a complete red herring.
Regards.
At 10:46 AM Saturday 4/17/99, wrote:
>Mark Delany ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
>: In practice I'm told that some select() implementations are buggy
At 11:59 PM Friday 4/16/99, Sam wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Mark Delany wrote:
>
>> It wasn't so much the blocking I was thinking of (and I confess
ignorance on
>> this front) it was on the basis that multiple processes are writing to the
>> same pipe,
At 04:04 PM Tuesday 4/20/99, Robert J. Adams wrote:
>Harald,
>
>If we are speaking about reliability.. what if the local machine croaks..
>then anything in the queue (of that local machine) is lost.. that isn't
>acceptable.
Correct. But that doesn't detract from Harold's point that you *will*
co
At 10:46 PM Wednesday 4/21/99, John R. Levine wrote:
>>i asked someone at the o'reilly booth last week at spring internet world in
>>los angeles, the street date she gave me was i believe 1 sep 99.
>
>Uh, oh. Hey, Russ, we have to write faster.
I was wondering which tail was wagging which dog he
Where can I find out exactly what the gazintas/gazoutas are for
checkpassword? I need to use a non-standard user/password file, and
have to modify a login program to work for the pop logins.
y of
the shifted top row of the keyboard. Oh well, time to dust off the
trusty old K&R book and go reinvent the wheel. Thanks for the pointers,
I'll blunder through.
Mark Bitting
At 08:44 PM Monday 4/26/99, Fabio Ricardo Schmidlin wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>
>I'v send a message on the server running qmail using mailto and mail (the
>command line ones) and now the qmail-send sleeps forever. The queue has more
>than 340Mb of stucked messages at this point (around 23000 messages).
I've recently installed qmail + ezmlm(idx).
Now I'm starting to think 'how I could munge outgoing ezmlm messages
with pgp automatically?'...Selectable pgp version (tougher).
Has anyone else trod this path?
Regards + hail qmail!!!
Markt
PS. Strip the somewhere out for e-address.
Hello,
I know there were some patches posted awhile back for uw imap-4.5BETA but
the patches seemed to be for 4.2 - I was unsure if I had the correct
patches. Does anyone know the status of maildir support for an/any imapd?
Thanks.
--
Y2K - We're all gonna die.
At 09:38 PM Wednesday 4/28/99, Pike wrote:
>Hi
>
>I wish I had read a mail like this before I started installing qmail on my
>server,
>which is exactly why I'm writing it. Call it frustration.
>Qmail claims it's a replacement for sendmail.
>They say 'after installing, read the docs,there are some
I'm trying to use an existing virtual user database instead of the users
in /etc/passwd, I got the script to create .qmail files and Maildirs, I
just can't get the pop login thing to work. Is there a plain English
description of what/how checkpassword does? How about what qmail-popup
spits out a
At 11:01 AM Thursday 4/29/99, Brandon Pulsipher wrote:
>I am having a problem sending messages to /dev/null. I recently set a
>couple of .qmail files to /dev/null
>and now I see this in my logs:
>
>Apr 29 09:39:25 ns qmail: 925403965.005324 delivery 6356: deferral:
>Unable_to_write_/dev/null: inv
I can't think of any reason why either ezmlm or qmail would get confused by
large outbound mails. Additionally, I've never seen any of them get confused
by large mails either.
Regards.
At 06:25 PM 1/21/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Has anyone had experience with qmail and the sending
At 04:20 PM 1/22/99 -, Russell Nelson wrote:
>I'm setting up a customer's mail server, and just realized: I don't
>have to make a Maildir! I can just create these directories:
>
>/etc/skel/Maildir
>/etc/skel/Maildir/new
>/etc/skel/Maildir/tmp
>/etc/skel/Maildir/cur
>
>and this file:
>
>/etc/s
1. According to rfc1939 in the STAT command:
"Note that messages marked as deleted are not counted in either total."
But this is what I get:
$ ./qmail-pop3d MD
+OK
LAST
+OK
1 191
.
STAT
+OK 1 191
DELE 1
+OK
STAT
+OK 1 0
Note that second STAT still states '1' message. Should that say '0'?
You want to su to root. Do a chkconfig --del sendmail
That will keep sendmail from starting.
You can also do an rpm -e sendmail if you want to completely get rid of
it.
Regards,
Mark
On Wed, 5 May 1999, S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
qmail-remote has no permissions to touch the queue and there are no kill
calls in any of the qmail code, so:
o nothing gets rid of running qmail-remotes (as also evidenced by the log
entries when you shutdown qmail-send)
and
o qmail-remote never notices that the underlying infrastructure has
At 07:40 PM Wednesday 5/5/99, Rick Myers wrote:
>On May 05, 1999 at 13:23:48 -0700, Mark Delany twiddled the keys to say:
>> qmail-remote has no permissions to touch the queue and there are no kill
>> calls in any of the qmail code, so:
>>
>> o nothing gets rid of run
At 12:07 PM Thursday 5/6/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 May 1999 at 15:19:36 -0700
>
> > Perhaps it's yet again the case of an rpm-styled installed doing
> > "almost the right thing". (I confess to continual
>Sorry again, I dumped the logs from last year. My previous comment can
>be considered an opinion, but am I wrong in thinking that qmail-send ala
>1.01 wasn't as orderly upon receiving a -TERM? I remember saying to
>myself, "that's a neat feature" the first time I saw 1.03 log entries
>stating tha
tied up with the duplicate
traffic. Has anyone come up with a patch/hack to "solve" this yet?
Thanks,
Mark
t fit, try Postfix. It's still beta, though. See
> www.postfix.org.
>
> (See Wietse, I'm not a mindless qmail fan. :-)
>
> -Dave
>
Will Postfix allow me to send a single message with multiple
recipients to my ISP via SMTP and have them handle the delivery?
Thanks,
Mark
Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly.
8<---snip
> > splits it. Is there any way around this? We often send messages
> > with attachments and
nal machine is dual-boot with W95, so that one wouldn't
be up all the time, but I could have the 486 masquerade.
Thanks for the ideas!
Mark
> In those situations in which you're sending big files to someone, you could
> point your mail program straight at your ISP's SMTP serve
> On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 02:57:30PM +0000, Mark Carpenter wrote:
> > Thanks. I was affraid of that. Drat! I finally got everything working
> > together, too. Any suggestions for a package that would be good in
> > this situation. The boss isn't going to let that fly
1 - 100 of 853 matches
Mail list logo
