On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 05:31:50PM -0700, chris wrote:
> Right, I DO want to use it. I just didn't want to have to create multiple
> instances of supervise for each one.. I guess I was hoping supervise could
> observe one "run" that contained multiple TCPSERVER and if any of them died,
> it woul
>
> well, you just got rid of the reason why you where using daemontools in
> the first place... if you don't want daemontools, don't use it.
Right, I DO want to use it. I just didn't want to have to create multiple
instances of supervise for each one.. I guess I was hoping supervise could
obse
ut there.
>
> Chris Bunnell
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "tonix (Antonio Nati)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Qmail-sc
ntonio Nati)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Qmail-scanner-general]multiple TCPSERVER's for per-domain
scanning
> At 11/05/2002 11/05/2002 -0700, chris wrote:
> &g
At 11/05/2002 11/05/2002 -0700, chris wrote:
>Hello list,
>
> I understand that a method of running "per-domain scanning" would be to
>use MX records to point to different IP's that are local to your single mail
>server running qmail-scanner. Then you would have separate instances of
>TCPSERV
Hello list,
I understand that a method of running "per-domain scanning" would be to
use MX records to point to different IP's that are local to your single mail
server running qmail-scanner. Then you would have separate instances of
TCPSERVER running that are listening to those IP's. In you
