On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:49:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can configure fetchmail to run through procmail.
>
> Er, the fetchmail FAQ implies that if you use -mda procmail you can lose
> mail to resource exhaustion.
You lose .forward and alia
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In any case, policy is not meant to be followed anyway.
Raul> Cut it out, Manoj.
Why? You should be happy I'm on your side now. Were you not
objecting to the statement that polic
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sendmail configuration is tough but it is also the best documented
>> MTA bar none!
Raul> Please don't confuse lots of documentation for well documented.
In my opinion, sendmail
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 07:42:08PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rev> smail is NASTY to configure over dialup links. And getting worse
> Rev> it seems. I couldn't do it. sendmail is clearly not suited for
> Rev> the task.
>
> Just don't tell that to my machine.
>
> manoj
> wh
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 07:33:03PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > one word: fetchmail.
>
> fetchmail doesn't do local mail delivery, but relies on an smtp server.
> ssmtp is not an smtp server.
one more word: procmail
[from man page]
-m, --mDa
(Keyword: mda) You can force
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:10:08PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rev. Joseph Carter writes:
> > I think most Rockwell chipsets can do that. Part of a 4-5 line report of
> > the connection info. Quite verbose actually.
>
> But somewhere in there they always say 'CONNECT'. The one I'm dealing
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:24:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Test $DISPLAY, it's the Right Way to test for X.
>
> But not the right way to test for xterm.
If $DISPLAY is set you're either in an xterm, rxvt, or kvt. As far as ae
would care, these are one and the same.
pgpBM27t6J25C.pgp
Desc
> [1] I don't why my system always reboots in "read-only" mode now;
Umm, what kernel were you running before? The kernel has defaulted to
mounting the root read-only for a *long* time (before debian-1.3, I
thought), and then remounting it in the rc scripts -- grep shows:
/etc/rcS.d/S10checkroot.s
Chris> Debian's [...] Chris> and adding the requirement for PGP (which I
Chris> never needed before) plus my growing involvement in small start-up
Chris> businesses (mostly Debian Linux based) have consumed all my time.
FUD.
I created PGP keys three years ago because I needed to sign Deb
I upgraded to libc6 and hamm this weekend... and had my entire
root partition flagged "readonly" by an unknown mechanism. This
got me cursing and thinking[1]
Ideally the issue should never come up, but hard disks fail.
Hard disks are replaced as hardware is upgraded. Occasionally
things get
Could anyone tell me why premail is in non-free? I've read the license a
couple of times, and I really don't see anything that would prevent it from
being in main (or at least contrib). Am I missing something?
Christian
---
This is the Debian Linux prepackaged version of p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bear Giles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Thats a good point, who actually has a truely MONO screen anymore? [...]
> >I think machines with a mono video card (ie a herc) would be unable to run
> >Debian in the first pla
someone on tcsh-dev found that bug - I sent in the particular patch as
a bug report, but haven't heard anything (on this or on the
history-lines 2*longer than the buffer problem either, though I
haven't dug through and sent that upstream myself...)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
'Santiago Vila wrote:'
Sorry, I seem to be perpetually several days behind in reading
debian-devel.
>If nobody objects, I intent to take mawk and gawk.
I intend to keep these two.
>[ There have been no maintainer uploads since March 1997, is one year
> enough? ].
Sorry.
I promise to learn PG
On Sun, May 3 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
|
|Sendmail configuration is tough but it is also the best documented MTA
|bar none! The O'Reliey book alone on sendmail is 2 1/5" thick. Probably
|close to everything that has ever been done with mail has been d
On Sun, 3 May 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is the info page wrong? Should I submit a bug?
>
> Yes.
>
> Aside: on solaris it's /var/adm/utmp, on the bsd system I have access to
> it's /var/run/utmp, I don't remember what system would have it in /etc/.
Co
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the info page wrong? Should I submit a bug?
Yes.
Aside: on solaris it's /var/adm/utmp, on the bsd system I have access to
it's /var/run/utmp, I don't remember what system would have it in /etc/.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NOTE (1): IF YOU RESPOND BY E-MAIL YOU MAY GET BOUNCED BACK BECAUSE OUR
E-MAIL BOX IS GETTING FULL. TRY CALLING INSTEAD. THANK YOU
NOTE (2): PLEASE DO NOT CALL OUR PRICING/ORDER TAKING LINE (770-399-0953)
FOR QUESTIONS OTHER THAN PRICING/ORDERING. THEY HAVE NO
The who info page indicates that who finds its data in /etc/utmp, but I
have no such file and who works ok. The file I do have is /var/run/utmp,
which I can only assume who knows about.
Yes, it does.
Is the info page wrong? Should I submit a bug?
Yes and yes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
The who info page indicates that who finds its data in /etc/utmp, but I
have no such file and who works ok. The file I do have is /var/run/utmp,
which I can only assume who knows about.
Is the info page wrong? Should I submit a bug?
Thanks,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's
Sitting around thinking about nothing in particular, and it occurred
to me that it might be useful to include some of the buggier packages
on the WNPP. This might be a good way to get people to work on fixing
these packages, instead of seeking out new things to package. Maybe
we could include all
I've combined the Packages files for main, contrib, non-free
and non-us for a program I'm working on and there are about 10
duplicate package names. tcpquota is in contrib/admin & admin;
xexec in contrib/misc and x11, for example. Is this because
the different versions have different distribution d
At 10:11 -0400 1998-05-02, Raul Miller wrote:
>Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You don't need ftpd and telnetd. You probably do need an http server for
>> documentation, but then again dhttpd is small and does the job nicely.
>
>Much better than a server would be a browser which s
--On Sun, May 3, 1998 5:26 pm +0100 "Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi there...
>
> Anyone out there already grabbed the enlightenment package, or have a
reason
> why it shouldn't be in slink? If not, I hereby announce intent to package
> enlightenment for slink/main.
Oops.
I withdr
Hi there...
Anyone out there already grabbed the enlightenment package, or have a reason
why it shouldn't be in slink? If not, I hereby announce intent to package
enlightenment for slink/main.
Subject to me first registering succesfully as a developer.
Yours,
Jules Bean
/+
> > What news servers besides slrn support reading news directly from the news
> > spool w/o a news server?
>
> tin (rather than tin -r or rtin).
Gnus (in emacs).
Cheers,
- Jim
pgppKPgXPsA90.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
>
>I will take a look at sendmail because of Manoj's remarks since the only
>significant disadvantage to sendmail that I could see is that it can be a
>real tough one to set up properly (if you are a continuously connected
>mail server then it is almost a 'sna
On Sat, May 02, 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:36:28AM -0700, John Labovitz wrote:
> > have you looked at ssmtp? i just took a quick look at the source, and
> > it seems that it's *extremely* simple -- sounds like a good one for a
> > send-only MTA.
> >
> > config opt
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:39:25PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> > slrnpull should probably be seperated from slrn simply because there's
> > nothing in it that REQUIRES slrn other than that it puts things in
> > /var/spool/slrnpull (can be changed) and if you don't LIKE slr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sendmail configuration is tough but it is also the best documented MTA
> bar none!
Please don't confuse lots of documentation for well documented.
In fact, a useful documentation tactic is to alter the program to
make it easier to document.
--
Raul
On Sun, 3 May 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
>
> I don't think so Jason...
>
> Fetchmail is also pretty robust about mail handling but it expect whatever
> it 'hands a message too' to do something with the message.
>
> I won't even pretend to know the nat
The procmail documentation makes it clear that, if you have a 'real' mda
which hands mail off to procmail via .forward, then if procmail fails it
will leave the message enqueued in the mta.
So if disk space is not a problem, install smail or sendmail along with
procmail, and try that.
Carl
[EMAI
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
I don't think so Jason...
Fetchmail is also pretty robust about mail handling but it expect whatever
it 'hands a message too' to do something with the message.
I won't even pretend to know the nature of the problems but I suspect that
it deals with the idea
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
I think I'm confused too thought that is not such an unusual state latesly...
Fetchmail IS POP (or IMAP and somthing else but definately NOT smtp) for
__getting__ the mail. It IS also smtp for handing the mail to the machine
that it is running on (though I g
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Sendmail configuration is tough but it is also the best documented MTA
bar none! The O'Reliey book alone on sendmail is 2 1/5" thick. Probably
close to everything that has ever been done with mail has been done with
sendmail (and possibly some things that c
I recall there being a discussion on this some time ago, I just noticed on
master,
4053 branden 11 0 1500 1500 724 R 0 98.6 2.3 1194m tcsh
(I've killed it now)
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> slrnpull should probably be seperated from slrn simply because there's
> nothing in it that REQUIRES slrn other than that it puts things in
> /var/spool/slrnpull (can be changed) and if you don't LIKE slrn you can
> still have slrnpull, etc.
What news servers besides sl
Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> Nah, leafnode does NOT deal with spam well (read: at all). slrnpull is
> better at that. Probably why it should be split out of the slrn package.
Hmm, interesting idea. I'm willing to do this if there's any demand
--
see shy jo, slrn maintainer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Jim Pick wrote:
> I haven't looked at it. It's only 15k! That would be a really good
> choice if it actually does the job. :-)
One large problem with ssmtp is that it has no queueing. If you try to send
mail offline, it gets lost.
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can configure fetchmail to run through procmail.
>
> Er, the fetchmail FAQ implies that if you use -mda procmail you can lose
> mail to resource exhaustion.
Then fetchmail is at fault, procmail will not
Rev. Joseph Carter writes:
> I think most Rockwell chipsets can do that. Part of a 4-5 line report of
> the connection info. Quite verbose actually.
But somewhere in there they always say 'CONNECT'. The one I'm dealing with
apparently doesn't. I'm trying to find out if this is common enough th
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > >There doesn't seem to be a "reliable" method for determining whether or
> > >not you are in an xterm. Any method so far suggested has "natural"
> > >configuration situations t
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can configure fetchmail to run through procmail.
Er, the fetchmail FAQ implies that if you use -mda procmail you can lose
mail to resource exhaustion.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yep, but it'd be nice if there were guidelines on how to keep local
> packages out of the way of upstream debian packages.
Er.. there are: put everything local in /usr/local/. (or, for that matter,
under /home/.)
If you're stuck with something elsew
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be wrong with having the "non-x" ae tell you in the help
> screen what you need to run to get xterm support? The need for this
> xterm support comes from folks who want to administer a base system
> remotely from a system using an xterm. This is
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> smail is NASTY to configure over dialup links. And getting worse it seems.
> I couldn't do it. sendmail is clearly not suited for the task.
^^^
why?
sendmail configuration is a no-br
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > one word: fetchmail.
>
> fetchmail doesn't do local mail delivery, but relies on an smtp server.
> ssmtp is not an smtp server.
You can configure fetchmail to run through procmail.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSC
Hi,
>>"Rev" == Rev Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rev> smail is NASTY to configure over dialup links. And getting worse
Rev> it seems. I couldn't do it. sendmail is clearly not suited for
Rev> the task.
Just don't tell that to my machine.
manoj
who is happy with
Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test $DISPLAY, it's the Right Way to test for X.
But not the right way to test for xterm.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 May 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
> As far as people developing local packages to add on to Debian (which
> is not really what I am planning) - I don't think additional policy is
> needed for that, because they are "local" packages, so it is a matter
> of "local" policy.
Yep, but it'd be nice if
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 06:52:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > mail supports procmail. ssmtp does not support mail reception, nor does
> > it support local mail delivery.
Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> one word: fetchmail.
fetchmail doesn't do local mail delivery, but relies
On Sat, 2 May 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:...
> >There doesn't seem to be a "reliable" method for determining whether or
> >not you are in an xterm. Any method so far suggested has "natural"
> >configuration situations that break the method.
>
> When you start an xterm,
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:13:35PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > BTW has anyone else run across a modem that reports 'CARRIER' instead of
> > 'CONNECT'?
>
> My very first modem did that. But we are talking 1988 (whoa! it's been
> long) here and that was an El Cheapo 2400
I think most Rock
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >There doesn't seem to be a "reliable" method for determining whether or
> >not you are in an xterm. Any method so far suggested has "natural"
> >configuration situations that break the method.
>
> When you start an xterm, TER
54 matches
Mail list logo
