On Tuesday 25 August 2009 04:23:48 pm Matt Brookings wrote:
> Steve Cole wrote:
> > Moving to the new vpopmail (with the identical CFLAGS & configure options
> > for 5.4.23 that I've been using for a long time), I get:
>
> What CFLAGS and configure options are yo
Moving to the new vpopmail (with the identical CFLAGS & configure options for
5.4.23 that I've been using for a long time), I get:
Aug 25 14:45:47 zeus kernel: vdelivermail[30615]: segfault at 20 ip
0040eff6 sp 7fff74149560 error 4 in vdelivermail[40+16000]
Aug 25 14:45:47 zeus k
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 12:43:10 Matt Brookings wrote:
> I've moved 5.4.27 devel to stable. I also autoreconf'd with an older
> autoconf for people without the latest version of the toolset.
Marked stable? The quota features do not work... worse, they miscalculate
quota and cause people t
Just a note that the quota issues for vpopmail are still present in 5.4.27.
It looks like messages are entered into the maildirsize file but do not get
accounted for when they are removed.
!DSPAM:49808f2632687061418760!
On Wednesday 02 July 2008, Eric Olsen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having a problem with the way the maildirsize file is being updated
> by vdelivermail. For every message that is delivered to a given maildir
> two entries are made in the maildirsize file. The first entry that is
> appended to maildi
Pierre GEOFFROY wrote:
Thank you for your reply and help.
My understanding is that it is enabled (NOT commented): #define
CHKUSER_MBXQUOTA_VARIABLE "CHKUSER_MBXQUOTA"
and yes we recompiled
PG
De : Tonix (Antonio Nati) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : jeu
Rick Widmer wrote:
The only thing that says "memory leak" is in 5.4.18. There are many
bug fixes, and a few new features in 5.4.25, the current stable
version. If you are using vpopmaild you would want 5.4.26 the current
dev release. If you are on solaris, there is a fix that is only in
5.4.
Michael Johnson wrote:
What version and backend are you using? The better it can be narrowed,
the easier it will be to determine what change broke it.
For me, 5.4.25 with MySQL 5.0x
I started to see this with *.25 but I did jump a number of versions when
I took the plunge on .25.
!DSPAM
On Friday 09 November 2007, Michael Johnson wrote:
> I've recently noticed strange behavior with user quotas after an upgrade
> to vpopmail 5.4.25 from 5.4.18. The upgrade also moved from the cdb
> backend to the MySQL backend (due to locking issues I was experiencing).
>
> When delivering a messag
Remo Mattei wrote:
Hi I wonder since I am going to build a new qmail box what people are
using for Anti-Spam (rbl etc). I have checked the magic-smtpd and looks
promising any one has any suggestions?
A combination is probably best, but I'm using spamdyke and qsheff together.
!DSPAM:473132873
On Thursday 06 September 2007, Joshua Megerman wrote:
> The vpopmail table, and ONLY the vpopmail table, has a column named
> 'pw_domain'. Every other table should have a 'domain' column, as the
> earlier UPGRADE document listed (which incorrectly listed vpopmail as
> having a 'domain' column).
On two (low volume) machines with vpopmail interfaced with mysql as the data
store, it seemed to work successfully. I updated the database schema with no
issues. This is with v5.4.21
However, when I do a "vdeluser" on either machine, the program segfaults. On
both systems.
I tried various t
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Rick Widmer wrote:
> http://vpopmail.sf.net/
>
> 5.4.20 - released 21-Aug-07
Feels odd to ask this, but in the UPGRADE document, it lists the "pw_domain"
columns as requiring updates, but my databases have just "domain" in them
except for the vpopmail table.
I've up
I can compile courier-authlib version 0.59.2 or lower just fine with vpopmail
5.4.17 but I cannot get newer versions to compile. I tried asking on the
courier-imap list but they say "not our problem."
Here's the errors:
--
authvchkpw.c: In function 'auth_vchkpw_login':
authvchkpw.c:40: warnin
On Thursday 07 June 2007, Dvorkin Dmitry wrote:
> I found two problems in courier-imap-authlib:
AFAIK, SMTP-After-IMAP is not supported in the current Courier IMAP, so
you're spinning your wheels here. It's likely that it also isn't supported
by Courier Authlib and that's your problem.
But a
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/Qmail_Sucks
--
Cheers,
Steve
--
--
Cheers,
Steve
Any word on rolling up a new tarball release?
--
Cheers,
Steve
It's been over a month now... any word on a release with the issues identified
in 5.4.16 resolved? I recall Tom saying that we should expect a version mid
last week, but Sourceforge isn't reflecting that.
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 15:48, Tom Collins wrote:
> > Bad news...
>
> Can you email me your configuration options? In particular, I need to
> know which backend (cdb, mysql, postgres) and whether you have
> --enable-valias selected.
--enable-valias --enable-auth-module=mysql --enable-libdir=/u
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 14:50, Tom Collins wrote:
> This release brings in the vpopmail daemon (vpopmaild) from the 5.5
> development series, and fixes a few bugs from 5.4.13.
Bad news...
-- cut
libvpopmail.a(libvpopmail_a-vpalias.o): In function
`valias_select_next':vpalias.c:(.text+0x0):
Wouter van der Schagt wrote:
I think his question was more on if reloading has any effect on running
processes from qmail, rather than the reloading itself.
Our mailserver is pretty busy and we reload it regularly without any
problems. However we have less lines in the tcp.smtp file.
well, 10,00
ISP Lists wrote:
Related to my earlier post, how expensive is it - resource-wise - to
reload a tcp.smtp file of 100-1000 lines?
If it becomes expensive, you can use the SQL patch and do it with SQL.
There's no hit at all to adding or removing items in that case (may be
some with SQL, but I
Tom Collins wrote:
I don't have any changes since releasing 5.4.13. It should be safe to
use 5.4.13 on production servers -- I've been using it on my server
since it was released and haven't experienced any problems. The new
vdelivermail code was originally released on March 20th, and hasn't
Any word? Originally we were to have a stable version of the "new" code for
vdelivermail, etc. a week ago.
--
Cheers,
Steve
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:45, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Ahh... well, don't get too anxious for people to drop their MS Outlooks.
> I've yet to see a webmail that provides the speed and convenience (and
> offline access) that a good client-side mail browser can (not that I'm
> defending MS Outlook or
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:43, Alex Borges wrote:
> So, where can i find the documents to move my vpopmail install from
> qmail to postfix?
I haven't done it. Too many problems and risks for me. But Google probably
has the answer to that.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administra
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 17:19, Bruno Negrão wrote:
> What's bad on inter7 tools? For example, my boss thinks Sqwebmail is ugly,
> and it really is. But, IMP is a pain in the ass to set it up. We
> substituted Sqwebmail to IMP, but when I have to update IMP I almost break
> down and cry. Sqwebmail
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:50, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 7:24:19 PM patrick wrote:
> > by the way: does anyone know a good howto to use smtp after pop with
> > vpopmail? regards
>
> That's exactly 'roaming users' feature of vpopmail.
Yes. Just so every
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:45, Paul Theodoropoulos wrote:
> yes, this is on high volume servers (national ISP infrastructure).
>
> i won't speculate where the problem actually lies. That should be obvious.
I agree. It should be.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kings
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you have some other issues...
I'm sure that's it. Probably the same issue on Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,
2.8, 2.9, Linux 2.0, 2.4, 2.6, FreeBSD 4.1, 4.3, and SCO. After all, the
symptoms are the same... qmail-send dies.
I'm
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:28, Ken Jones wrote:
> We like qmail for many reasons, mostly because it is efficent and
> it never breaks.
I've had it stop running enough times that I run "/etc/init.d/qmailq start"
every hour, just so that I can be sure it will continue (we get over 500K
mail per d
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:20, James McMillan wrote:
> "Why should I use qmail?"
Then, the answer is probably:
"If you're already using it, and it's adequate or too costly to switch."
These days, that pretty much sums it up.
--
Cheers,
Steve |President & Systems Administrator, Kingston
In passing, qsheff version 1.0 was released. This is the best solution for
qmail spam and virus protection I've yet seen for qmail, and in my testing it
seems less buggy than most.
http://www.enderunix.org/qsheff/
enderunix has a reputation for building efficient useful software. I haven't
t
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 15:13, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Old? Yes. Hard to use without patches? Eh, I think netqmail has
> addressed that "problem".
Don't quote problem. It has real problems. errno.h is a nice start.
netqmail is at best a hacked-together solution for a small set of problems.
It
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote:
> Most of the GNU/linux distributors are using sendmail but I
> can assure you that the mailserver most robust, efficient and secure is by
> far qmail.
This is simply not true anymore. It was true in 1997, and maybe right up to
1999 (I'll t
On Tuesday 05 July 2005 14:18, Listas barbarojo wrote:
> It has been developed in a modular way that makes it extreamly easy to add
> functionality to it and much more.
Wrong. I has been developed in such a way that functionality has to be added
in the form of patches, and it is suffering great
36 matches
Mail list logo
