Re: Any chance of a new release?

Off list, I've been pointed to https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/releases I had been looking at https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/releases Sorry for the noise. — Dan Langille d...@biglist.com On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > Hello, > > Any chance of a new r

Any chance of a new release?

Hello, Any chance of a new release? I ask because I encountered this bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693179 which is fixed by this patch: https://github.com/smtpd/qpsmtpd/commit/1bfebd0bfd5e86f8ed4f770ba54846dc9d18e0ab which went in about a year ago. Four years

qpsmtpd-dev release 0.92

I just tagged the 0.92 release of qpsmtpd-dev. It can be downloaded by clicking the Tags button on the github project page at https://github.com/qpsmtpd-dev/qpsmtpd-dev. The changes are listed below. Matt 0.92 Apr 20, 2013 new plugins: dmarc, fcrdns new feature: DKIM message signing

Re: release

t kept close watch on their backwards compatibility, so it's a tight timeline if we were to try to cut a release before then. Devin -- Devin \ aqua(at)devin.com, IRC:Requiem; http://www.devin.com Carraway \ 1024D/E9ABFCD2: 13E7 199E DD1E 65F0 8905 2E43 5395 CA0D E9AB FCD2

release

What is the process for releasing a new version of qpsmtpd? Matt ` Matt Simerson http://matt.simerson.net/ Systems Engineerhttp://www.tnpi.net/ Mail::Toaster - http://mail-toaster.org/

Re: Release soon

On Saturday 13. February 2010 06:53:12 Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > I'm going to make a release soon, so if you have patches that aren't > merged into my branch yet that you think should be, > BTW, it seems like Debian is going to freeze RSN, and I kinda prefer to have my pro

Re: Release soon

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to make a release soon, so if you have patches that aren't merged into my branch yet that you think should be, be sure to speak up! I just merged the RPM packaging stuff Peter Holzer and Robin Bowes made (over

Re: Release soon

Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: Hi everyone, I'm going to make a release soon, so if you have patches that aren't merged into my branch yet that you think should be, be sure to speak up! I just merged the RPM packaging stuff Peter Holzer and Robin Bowes made (over the last 5 years; don'

Release soon

Hi everyone, I'm going to make a release soon, so if you have patches that aren't merged into my branch yet that you think should be, be sure to speak up! I just merged the RPM packaging stuff Peter Holzer and Robin Bowes made (over the last 5 years; don't say anything is bein

Re: Christmas release?

> > On the topic of releasing, why isn't qpsmtpd released to CPAN? > > Because we never really got it easily installable via the whole > "Makefile.PL" route. Any specific problems? Is it because qpsmtpd can be installed in several ways, or is it just an itch nobody really cared to scratch yet? -

Re: Christmas release?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:58:23 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote: >>> On Dec 19, 2008, at 18:56, Matt Sergeant wrote: >>>> Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever... > > On the topic of releasing, why isn't qpsmtpd released to CPAN? Because we never rea

Re: Christmas release?

> > On Dec 19, 2008, at 18:56, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >> Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever... On the topic of releasing, why isn't qpsmtpd released to CPAN? -- Med venlig hilsen Kaare Rasmussen, Jasonic Jasonic Telefon: +45 3816 258

Re: Christmas release?

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:19:06 +0100, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > On Dec 19, 2008, at 18:56, Matt Sergeant wrote: > >> Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever... > > Sounds good to me! Any reason we can't release what is in git^WSVN > right now? I'

Re: Christmas release?

On Dec 19, 2008, at 18:56, Matt Sergeant wrote: Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever... Sounds good to me! Any reason we can't release what is in git^WSVN right now?

Re: Christmas release?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Sergeant wrote: > Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever... Yes please. Lovely present. :) Cheers James Turnbull - -- Author of: * Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590599780/) * Pro Nagios 2

Christmas release?

Shall we do a release for xmas? It's been forever...

Release?

Hi guys, is there any ETA for a release these days? Greetz -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Release tweak suggestion.

yes, please on the first two. i would leave the last one LOGALERT, but that case does not happen that often for me... allan On 7/4/08, Chris Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can we please, pretty please, downgrade these messages: > > $self->log(LOGALERT, "from email address : [$from]"); > $se

Release tweak suggestion.

Can we please, pretty please, downgrade these messages: $self->log(LOGALERT, "from email address : [$from]"); $self->log(LOGALERT, "to email address : [$rcpt]"); $self->log(LOGALERT, "Message too big: size: $size (max size: $max_size)"); in lib/Qpsmtpd/SMTP.pm to below LOGWARN? Especially the f

Re: questions re: async, perperl, new release

e (the old "thundering herd" problem). >>> The subversion version is quite stable; indeed it's almost certainly >>> better than the last release. >> >> There's a message there ... :-) > > "quite stable" means different things to dif

Re: questions re: async, perperl, new release

t faster? Which one would you guys recommend? Performance is a priority. >> The subversion version is quite stable; indeed it's almost certainly >> better than the last release. > > There's a message there ... :-) "quite stable" means different things to different people ;-) Could you elaborate? Thanks

Re: questions re: async, perperl, new release

e's been running it under pperl or PersistentPerl for a while. Actually qpsmtpd-prefork is closer. >> I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is >> the CVS version stable enough for production? > > The subversion version is quite stable; indeed it

Re: questions re: async, perperl, new release

pperl, but I've never used it. qpsmtpd-forkserver is our closest equivalent. I don't know if anyone's been running it under pperl or PersistentPerl for a while. I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is the CVS version stable enough for producti

questions re: async, perperl, new release

sed it. I noticed a mention of a new release on 4 June. Any news on that? Is the CVS version stable enough for production? Thanks Dale

Re: Release?

nter' was somewhere prominent on the wiki > > > before the release as I've seen many questions about -async and '* > > > notes' on the list. However, I suppose that the wiki already has > > Write a .pod about it and we'll include it. I wrote the plugins.pod

Re: Release?

On Wed, 2008-04-06 at 19:47 +0200, Hanno Hecker wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:10:13 -0400 > Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, what I meant by 'pointer' was somewhere prominent on the wiki > > before the release as I've seen many question

Re: Release?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:10:13 -0400 Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, what I meant by 'pointer' was somewhere prominent on the wiki > before the release as I've seen many questions about -async and '* > notes' on the list. However, I suppos

Re: Release?

On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:26 AM, John Peacock wrote: We need to make sure the Changes file is up-to-date. - ask -- http://develooper.com/ - http://askask.com/

Re: Release?

::Transaction. > > Hanno Actually, what I meant by 'pointer' was somewhere prominent on the wiki before the release as I've seen many questions about -async and '* notes' on the list. However, I suppose that the wiki already has something already as I haven't looked there for a while either. -- --gh

Re: Release?

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:47:43 -0400 Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-06 at 23:42 +1000, James Turnbull wrote: > A pointer to 'transaction notes' versus 'connection notes' and when and > how to use them when writing plugins would be a big help.[...] perldoc docs/plugins.pod

Re: Release?

On Wed, 2008-04-06 at 23:42 +1000, James Turnbull wrote: > Again my contribution is going to be merely a: > > +1 > > But happy to update wiki etc with new release guff. A pointer to 'transaction notes' versus 'connection notes' and when and how to use them

Re: Release?

John Peacock wrote: > Are we at a state where we could release? I'd like to get Net::SMTP::ESMTP > released before OSCON (so I can do a lightning talk on it), but I rely on an > installed qpsmtpd instance for the test suite (go figure, you need an MTA to > test a SMTP client)

Release?

Are we at a state where we could release? I'd like to get Net::SMTP::ESMTP released before OSCON (so I can do a lightning talk on it), but I rely on an installed qpsmtpd instance for the test suite (go figure, you need an MTA to test a SMTP client). Anything I can do to help (apart

Re: Next steps to release?

On Mon, 12 May 2008, Hanno Hecker wrote: On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:58:46 + (UTC) Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers agains

Re: Next steps to release?

On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:58:46 + (UTC) Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got > async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers > against using async in production. &

Avoid repetitive logging, was Re: Next steps to release?

I think this came up once before, but I can't find a reference. There are two logging calls which I think should be removed, or at least have their severity reduced. Patch for the former below: More generally I think it would be nice to decide what levels the core should use for outputti

Re: Next steps to release?

On 9-May-08, at 6:53 PM, Charlie Brady wrote: On Fri, 9 May 2008, Matt Sergeant wrote: On 9-May-08, at 1:00 PM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: On the other hand, we could directly write the files in the queue, like qmail-queue.c, not having to fork and exec to bin/ qmail-queue... and all in asy

Re: Next steps to release?

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Matt Sergeant wrote: On 9-May-08, at 1:00 PM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: On the other hand, we could directly write the files in the queue, like qmail-queue.c, not having to fork and exec to bin/qmail-queue... and all in async-fashion. That's not entirely possible I don'

Re: Next steps to release?

On 9-May-08, at 1:00 PM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: Matt Sergeant escribió: On 9-May-08, at 11:25 AM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: Proposal 4: I'd like to see a qmail-queue async plugin. I'd put myself to the task, but by async programming skills tend to null for the moment. I don't think that's

Re: Next steps to release?

Matt Sergeant escribió: On 9-May-08, at 11:25 AM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: Proposal 4: I'd like to see a qmail-queue async plugin. I'd put myself to the task, but by async programming skills tend to null for the moment. I don't think that's possible, since qmail-queue is fork/exec'd. I gues

Re: Next steps to release?

On 9-May-08, at 11:25 AM, Jose Luis Martinez wrote: Proposal 4: I'd like to see a qmail-queue async plugin. I'd put myself to the task, but by async programming skills tend to null for the moment. I don't think that's possible, since qmail-queue is fork/exec'd. I guess you could async the

Re: Next steps to release?

Matt Sergeant escribió: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers against using async in production. So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release?

Re: Next steps to release?

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Matt Sergeant wrote: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers against using async in production. So what's missing and what would you like to see before t

Re: Next steps to release?

I'll give it a try if you have a complete patch (at the moment you're discussing this with ask) for me :-) is this OK? Stefan Hanno Hecker schrieb: Hi Stefan, On Wed, 07 May 2008 22:07:35 +0200 Stefan Priebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to see a real working tls in prefork server w

Re: Next steps to release?

On May 7, 2008, at 12:58, Matt Sergeant wrote: So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release? We should go through the list at http://code.google.com/p/smtpd/issues and make sure anything critical there has been resolved. Many/most of the ideas brought

Re: Next steps to release?

Matt Sergeant wrote: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers against using async in production. So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release?

Re: Next steps to release?

Hi! At the moment i'm using qpsmtpd 0.40. Has there anything changed since that - regarding tls? Otherwise it will not work. We've discussed this point a few month ago - it was / is a bug / problem in the IO::Socket::SSL Module or tls plugin. Stefan Hanno Hecker schrieb: Hi Stefan, On Wed

Re: Next steps to release?

Hi Stefan, On Wed, 07 May 2008 22:07:35 +0200 Stefan Priebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to see a real working tls in prefork server without the > need to do an exit in each child after tls. Does the attached patch work for you? I can send several mails to a test instance started wit

Re: Next steps to release?

d it sent it to Matt's personal email instead of the list, sorry. Matt Sergeant wrote: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers against using async in production. So what

Re: Next steps to release?

Steve Kemp wrote: On Wed May 07, 2008 at 19:58:46 +, Matt Sergeant wrote: So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release? A decent guide / example on how to use the async setup? " " "" " " " " " apache " :) R.

Re: Next steps to release?

On Wed May 07, 2008 at 19:58:46 +, Matt Sergeant wrote: > So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release? A decent guide / example on how to use the async setup? Steve --

Re: Next steps to release?

Hi I would like to see a real working tls in prefork server without the need to do an exit in each child after tls. Stefan Matt Sergeant schrieb: So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the sh

Next steps to release?

So the next release I consider to be a fairly major step - we've got async/smtp-forward and async tls working. That's most of the showstoppers against using async in production. So what's missing and what would you like to see before the next release? (obviously not limited

Re: Release

On 18-Mar-08, at 9:53 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: On 14-Mar-08, at 9:48 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: Ask and Matt What's the current release status of qpsmtpd? The SVN is tagged 0.43 but the latest on the website seems to be 0.40. Time for a release and announce? Sounds like a plan.

Re: Release

On 14-Mar-08, at 9:48 AM, Matt Sergeant wrote: Ask and Matt What's the current release status of qpsmtpd? The SVN is tagged 0.43 but the latest on the website seems to be 0.40. Time for a release and announce? Sounds like a plan. In case anyone (well, Ask) was thinking about cu

Re: Release

On 14-Mar-08, at 4:54 AM, James Turnbull wrote: Ask and Matt What's the current release status of qpsmtpd? The SVN is tagged 0.43 but the latest on the website seems to be 0.40. Time for a release and announce? Sounds like a plan.

Release

Ask and Matt What's the current release status of qpsmtpd? The SVN is tagged 0.43 but the latest on the website seems to be 0.40. Time for a release and announce? Regards James -- James Turnbull ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Author of: * Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://www.amazon.c

new release WAS authnull plugin in config.sample/plugins enables relaying?

Matt Sergeant wrote: > Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: >> >> On Sep 23, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Sydney Bogaert wrote: >> >>> The problem I think is that this config is found in the .tar.gz file, >>> the file that most people download and install as is... >> >> Yeah, I'm thinking of rolling a 0.41 with the change

Re: Ready for release

Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:09, Matt Sergeant wrote: I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. Ask: can you tag 0.33 and do a release? I liked the suggestion of calling it 0.40 - so I tagged it as 0.40rc1 Unless something comes up I will tag and

Re: Ready for release

On Jun 7, 2007, at 3:50, Peter J. Holzer wrote: There's a lot of stuff in tags/0.40rc1/ which isn't contained in qpsmtpd-0.40_01.tar.gz: Oops - we've not been keeping MANIFEST in sync. I updated it and tagged rc2. https://svn.perl.org/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc2/ http://tmp.askask

Re: Ready for release

t; > % diff -ur ~/wrk/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc1 ~/tmp/qpsmtpd-0.40_01 |& grep -v ' > \.svn$' [snip] > If you consider the stuff you omitted not to be ready for release I think it > should be removed from tags/0.40rcX, too. Most of the things in that list look useful (or esse

Re: Ready for release

tpd/tags/0.40rc1/plugins: tls_cert Only in /home/hjp/wrk/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc1: qpsmtpd-async Only in /home/hjp/wrk/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc1: qpsmtpd-prefork Only in /home/hjp/wrk/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc1/t/plugin_tests: auth Only in /home/hjp/wrk/qpsmtpd/tags/0.40rc1/t/plugin_tests: rcpt_ok If you consider t

Re: Ready for release

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 11:27 -0700, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: [snip] > I liked the suggestion of calling it 0.40 - so I tagged it as 0.40rc1 I thought you had already made this decision in February: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.qpsmtpd/2007/02/msg6300.html [snip] Thanks for making it happen

Re: Ready for release

> I liked the suggestion of calling it 0.40 - so I tagged it as 0.40rc1 Yeah, party! > Unless something comes up I will tag and push the proper version on > Saturday the 9th (my birthday ;-) ) Maybe use the remaining days to write some kind of press notice? Regards Michael -- It's an insa

Re: Ready for release

On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:09, Matt Sergeant wrote: I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. Ask: can you tag 0.33 and do a release? I liked the suggestion of calling it 0.40 - so I tagged it as 0.40rc1 Unless something comes up I will tag and push the proper versi

Re: Ready for release

c growth, no reason to ruin it. > > -R It was an arbitrary release number but I think it greatly helps users if some future direction is given - organic growth is good but vision also helps people to grasp where qpsmtpd is going, if anywhere ( :) ). Regards James Turnbull -- James Turnbull

Re: Ready for release

> Perhaps a more formal TODO and/or a call for feature requests. Then > place the TODO/requests on a dev plan - with some direction for 0.5 -> 1.0? > And lets _NOT_ target 1.0. It's just a number. We've got nice organic growth, no reason to ruin it. -R

Re: Ready for release

Matt Sergeant wrote: > I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. > > Ask: can you tag 0.33 and we'll do a release? > > We should put together a plan for the next release so that it's less > ad-hoc. > Perhaps a more formal TODO and/or a ca

Re: Ready for release

On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 12:05 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote: > I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. > > Ask: can you tag 0.33 and we'll do a release? Isn't it 0.40 ? > > We should put together a plan for the next re

Ready for release

I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. Ask: can you tag 0.33 and we'll do a release? We should put together a plan for the next release so that it's less ad-hoc. __ This email has been

Ready for release

I've updated the Changes file now. We should be ready to go. Ask: can you tag 0.33 and do a release?

Plugins for next release

There are a few of my plugins which are currently in contrib which I think are generic enough to be included in the core: rcpt_accept: An extremely simple plugin, which just returns OK to the rcpt_hook. Useful as the last plugin hooking rcpt (accepts everything which hasn't been rejec

Re: Release (Re: How to configure stunnel Ver. 4)

On 29-May-07, at 8:20 AM, James Turnbull wrote: What does that spell? Release! :) Yeah I think we just need to update Changes (it's gonna be a long one!)

Release (Re: How to configure stunnel Ver. 4)

John Peacock wrote: > The trunk version of qpsmtpd handles multiple ports (well, the forkserver code > does anyway) for a while now, including SMTPS. You can either run trunk (I do > and it tastes great!) or wait until the next "official" release... Give me an 'R'!

Re: Pushing for a release again...

On May 17, 2007, at 15:18, Matt Sergeant wrote: I want to update the Changes file ... I'll try to work on it this weekend. I'll see if I can get that done tonight/tomorrow. Cool! In the meantime can we tag/push a beta? When we get the tests running again at least. :-) I've now ap

Re: Pushing for a release again...

On 17-May-07, at 6:10 PM, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: On May 17, 2007, at 14:45, Robert Spier wrote: Sure, lets just tag it and call it a release :) I want to update the Changes file ... I'll try to work on it this weekend. I'll see if I can get that done tonight/tomorrow. In th

Re: Pushing for a release again...

On May 17, 2007, at 14:45, Robert Spier wrote: Sure, lets just tag it and call it a release :) I want to update the Changes file ... I'll try to work on it this weekend. - ask -- http://develooper.com/ - http://askask.com/

Re: Pushing for a release again...

Sure, lets just tag it and call it a release :) -R At Thu, 17 May 2007 12:38:28 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote: > > Can we get a release out?

Re: Pushing for a release again...

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 12:38 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote: > Can we get a release out? Propose a schedule. Please include issue 14 from the tracker: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.qpsmtpd/2007/03/msg6513.html I will write more tests before the release if time allows. I'd like there

Pushing for a release again...

Can we get a release out?

SPF Press Release

There was a recent press release on the spf web-site: http://www.openspf.org/Press_Release/2007-04-21 I found it by accident[1] last Sunday. It looks fairly important to me: US Financial Services Industry Group Endorses SPF April 21, 2007 — BITS, a nonprofit industry

Re: New release?

Michael Holzt wrote: >> Is it perhaps time for another release? > > Absolutely. 0.32 is now over 1 year old and my impression is that > it is lacking lots of cool innovations done since then. I run from svn so I get all the cool innovations! :) R.

Re: New release?

> Is it perhaps time for another release? Absolutely. 0.32 is now over 1 year old and my impression is that it is lacking lots of cool innovations done since then. Regards Michael -- It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks

Re: New release?

On Apr 21, 2007, at 7:12 PM, James Turnbull wrote: Is it perhaps time for another release? Yes! Or is there a TODO list outstanding? There are a few issues in the google issue tracker that we ought to fix -- but it's been so long that I suppose it's more important to get

New release?

Hi all I've just been reviewing the last bunch of SVN changes. Is it perhaps time for another release? Or is there a TODO list outstanding? Regards James Turnbull signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Peter J. Holzer wrote: On 2005-08-23 14:16:08 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: and I'd be happier to use canonical versions than home built ones. I'm trying to keep the patches to the minimum, and I'm still hoping that 3 of the patches will make it into 0.31-final. Ah, I d

Re: Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On 2005-08-23 21:04:11 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2005-08-23 14:16:08 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > > Is it impractical to build your RPMs so that they are version agnostic? > > Installing the modules directly into /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl would work > > for all supported versions, would

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

ueue plugin would appreciate a signal on shutdown plugins.d/queue/K01ipc_dirqueue but I think it's on its own there because it's actually the work queues on other pc's that could use a kill signal so they could try to release nfs locks in the master nfs ipc_dirqueue control directory. F

Re: Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On 2005-08-23 14:22:03 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Charlie Brady wrote: > > >Is it impractical to build your RPMs so that they are version agnostic? > > Speaking of agnosticism, I notice that the cf_wrapper, client_stats, > majordomo, rcpt_accept and rhsbl_rcpt plugin rpms

Re: Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On 2005-08-23 14:16:08 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > >I just updated my RPMs[0] to this version and deployed them on my private > >mail server. And its running on our primary MX since sunday. So far nobody has complained ... > >[0] At the usual

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

Speaking of configuration, I'd been meaning to pass this along for a while. As part of the Debian packaging job I needed to write quite a bit of basic documentation into the qpsmtpd config files, which might be useful to the source distribution at large -- our plugins file documentation especially

Re: Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Charlie Brady wrote: Is it impractical to build your RPMs so that they are version agnostic? Speaking of agnosticism, I notice that the cf_wrapper, client_stats, majordomo, rcpt_accept and rhsbl_rcpt plugin rpms are all arch i386, when they could reasonable by noarch .

Peter's RPMS (Re: 0.31 release candidate 2)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Peter J. Holzer wrote: I just updated my RPMs[0] to this version and deployed them on my private mail server. ... [0] At the usual place: resp. . I can rebuild them for

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:17:32AM -0400, Bob Dodds wrote: > A per plugin deb or rpm could install into qpsmtpd with > minimal meddling that way. Maintaining debs rpms for > qpsmtpd installs with a given set of plugins would be > easy to maintain without scripting edits of config/plugins. It can a

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

Matt Sergeant wrote: On 22 Aug 2005, at 03:57, Peter J. Holzer wrote: Note this is why I implemented $Include. Maybe my cold is addling my brain, but I don't see how $Include can be used to load plugins from different locations. In my RPM, qpsmtpd and qpsmtpd-forkserver are in /usr/bin (they

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:36:01AM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > > The RPM still contains five patches: > > > > > > * Gavins patch for an optional hashref argument to config. This is > > > needed for the greylisting plugin, and it stops an endless recursion > > > somewhere. > > > (Gavin,

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On 22 Aug 2005, at 03:57, Peter J. Holzer wrote: Note this is why I implemented $Include. Maybe my cold is addling my brain, but I don't see how $Include can be used to load plugins from different locations. In my RPM, qpsmtpd and qpsmtpd-forkserver are in /usr/bin (they probably should be

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On 2005-08-21 18:06:01 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On 21 Aug 2005, at 05:22, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > >On 2005-08-20 20:59:10 -0700, Devin Carraway wrote: > >>On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:38:24PM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > >>>* My patch for a configurable plugin_dir (needed for the RPMs > >>>

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On 2005-08-22 08:37:31 +1000, Gavin Carr wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:38:24PM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > I just updated my RPMs[0] to this version and deployed them on my private > > mail server. Unless I notice any problems I will deploy it on the WSR > > mail server tomorrow, so any

Re: 0.31 release candidate 2

On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:38:24PM +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > I just updated my RPMs[0] to this version and deployed them on my private > mail server. Unless I notice any problems I will deploy it on the WSR > mail server tomorrow, so any serious problems should be noticable by > Monday ;-). >

  1   2   >