On Sunday 12 May 2002 03:18, chris wrote:
> Yep, that works, sort of. It appears that the second instance (as in
> the example) isn't controllable via SVC -d /service/qmail-smtpd
> anymore. SVC -u /service/qmail-smtpd DOES cause the two instances to
> start up (by using the & detach correctly)
On Monday, 22. April 2002 00:36, you wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:53:09PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > bangert@yatze:~ > rm ./tmp/*; reformime -x./tmp/ < ts.ml ; echo $?
> > ; ls -l ./tmp/
> > ./tmp/isdn exists.
> > 0
>
> Looks fine. So is that t
On Sunday, 21. April 2002 23:12, you wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:11:03AM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > 21/04/2002 01:02:34:24812: tempfail: X-Qmail-Scanner-1.10: cannot
> > close mimeunpacker -
>
> Hmm, looks OK. I guess you should do as Ed said - what happens when
On Thursday, 18. April 2002 00:55, you wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:23:14AM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > i'm just a little bit worried, that this could be a message that
> > gets stopped even tough it is valid...
>
> Please see qmail-queue.log for details o
