And again (sigh). ----- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:09:12 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.1 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_20,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,MAILER_DAEMON,
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE
autolearn=ham version=2.53
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data:
host master.debian.org [65.125.64.135]: 451 rejected:
can't currently verify any sender in the header lines (envelope sender is
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - try later:
retry timeout exceeded
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from client132.fre.communitycolo.net (kitenet.net) [64.62.161.42]
(postfix)
by gluck.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1950QU-00053Y-00; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 03:38:58 -0600
Received: by kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 500)
id C4960AA5C1; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:19:29 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:19:29 +0000
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FWD: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
My reply (see below) was delayed for a while because of suckiness in
master.debian.org's mail config.
----- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:16:02 +0000 (GMT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0
tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,PGP_SIGNATURE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
version=2.53
Content-Description: Notification
This is the Postfix program at host kitenet.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host master.debian.org[65.125.64.135] said: 451
rejected: can't currently verify any sender in the header lines (envelope
sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - try later (in reply to end of DATA command)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host master.debian.org[65.125.64.135] said: 451
rejected: can't currently verify any sender in the header lines (envelope
sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - try later (in reply to end of DATA command)
Content-Description: Delivery error report
Reporting-MTA: dns; kitenet.net
Arrival-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:10:39 +0000 (GMT)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host master.debian.org[65.125.64.135] said: 451
rejected: can't currently verify any sender in the header lines (envelope
sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - try later (in reply to end of DATA command)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host master.debian.org[65.125.64.135] said: 451
rejected: can't currently verify any sender in the header lines (envelope
sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) - try later (in reply to end of DATA command)
Content-Description: Undelivered Message
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:41:27 -0800
To: Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#180050: O: isync -- synchronize a local maildir with a remote
IMAP4 mailbox
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> I might be interrested to take over isync, since I use it.
> But as you prefer to use offlineimap rather than isync, I wonder how
> both compare. As you have use both, could you tell me how they compare?
> And do you know how both compare with mailsync?
>
> One feature I like in insync is the ability to limit the number of
> synchronized messages to a given number, and it seems that this feature
> is not available in mailsync/offlineimap.
I forget all the reasons I switched to offlineimap (it's been a while),
but it seemed like an easier to configure, more powerful, and faster
agent to me. Some of the features I like are concurrent syncs, and multiple
UI's, and storing the password in a separate file (without nasty hacks),
and working out what folders are on the server, instead of having the
list them all. The new upstream version of isync I packaged before
dropping it was also unfortunatly a bit buggy.
mailsync doesn't really compare; it didn't do flag synchronization at
all last time I looked at it. It is much more flexible about the formats
it can sync though.
--
see shy jo
----- End forwarded message -----
--
see shy jo
----- End forwarded message -----
--
see shy jo
pgpy60ywQf8ij.pgp
Description: PGP signature
