On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:29:46AM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote:
> On 08/15/06 09:49:54AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Hello,
> > This seems to be totally overengineered. Having MTA a provide sendmail
> > which uses MTA b for remote deliveries is no common usage scenario on
> > which any effort sho
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:40:48 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Am Samstag 19 August 2006 15:25 schrieb Marc Haber:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:21:22 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling
>> >
Am Samstag 19 August 2006 15:25 schrieb Marc Haber:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:21:22 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling
> > local mail will probably be rejected?
>
> Of course. You won't get any queue runs
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:21:22 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling local
>mail will probably be rejected?
Of course. You won't get any queue runs and thus mail that cannot be
delivered right away will stay forev
Am Donnerstag 17 August 2006 22:57 schrieb Otavio Salvador:
> Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling
> > local mail will probably be rejected?
>
> I guess you meant nullmailer.
No. I meant the setting in /etc/default
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling
> local
> mail will probably be rejected?
I guess you meant nullmailer.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
E-mail: [EMAI
On Thursday 17 August 2006 19:21, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 10 August 2006 23:56 schrieb Roger Leigh:
> > The inetd daemon installed by default:
> > etch: openbsd-inetd | netkit-inetd
>
> Note: etch beta 3 show me a dpkg status of "ic" for netkit-inetd after
> a fresh installat
Am Donnerstag 10 August 2006 23:56 schrieb Roger Leigh:
> The inetd daemon installed by default:
> etch: openbsd-inetd | netkit-inetd
Note: etch beta 3 show me a dpkg status of "ic" for netkit-inetd after a fresh
installation. openbsd-inetd is installed. Where does this come from?
The de
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This seems to be totally overengineered.
What, moreso than the exim4 configuration? :D
(Ok, I've grown used to it, even like it. But at first, it seemed
overengineered)
> Having MTA a provide sendmail which uses MTA b for remote deliveries
> i
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> This is actually a common setup when using amavis-ng, spamassasin and
And also the *recommended* setup for amavisd-new. But don't confuse two MTA
*paths* with two MTAs. A single MTA can handle the pre-filter and
post-filter paths just fine, if it is
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Jim Crilly wrote:
On 08/15/06 09:49:54AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
This seems to be totally overengineered. Having MTA a provide sendmail
which uses MTA b for remote deliveries is no common usage scenario on
which any effort should be spent in the Debian packagin
On 08/15/06 09:49:54AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
> This seems to be totally overengineered. Having MTA a provide sendmail
> which uses MTA b for remote deliveries is no common usage scenario on
> which any effort should be spent in the Debian packaging
> infrastructure.
>
> Actually t
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> * The "system mta" should provide /usr/sbin/sendmail, as well as
> mailq, runq, and man pages. The alternative system is able to link
> several alternatives.
[...]
> * The "service mta" should provide a listening socket, on one or more
>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:50:44AM +0200, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> * The "system mta" should provide /usr/sbin/sendmail, as well as
> mailq, runq, and man pages. The alternative system is able to link
> several alternatives.
Right, so three should be no problems there?
> * The "servic
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:24:11 -0400, "Roberto C. Sanchez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, the cyrus init script is called /etc/init.d/cyrus21, the
>courier init script is /etc/init.d/courier-imap and the dovecot init
>script is /etc/init.d/dovecot. It would seem to me that if these
>packages a
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:46:44AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> netbase:
> critical network configuration.
> It has some ancient cruft like /etc/services (which does more ill
> than good), but /etc/init.d/networking is not something one wants to
> skip.
Why do you b
"Matthew R. Dempsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:21:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> We don't allow multiple mtas because a mail-transport-agent is
>> *required* to provide /usr/sbin/sendmail.
>
> Why can Debian's alternatives system not alleviate this conflict?
I
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:21:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> We don't allow multiple mtas because a mail-transport-agent is *required* to
> provide /usr/sbin/sendmail.
Why can Debian's alternatives system not alleviate this conflict?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:27:39AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Aug 10, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> installed, all using the same configuration file. Is this a use
> >> case we really want to support? Are there really setups run
[Roger Leigh]
> Any thoughts or comments?
For the LTSP thin client environment, I switched to openbsd-inetd
because I could not avoid an inetd, and the openbsd version didn't
start when no service was enabled in /etc/inetd.conf. We do the same
in Debian-edu. A minor problem is that we are unabl
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>>> It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all. Those
>> No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.
>
> I see no reason why *Debian* systems should have an ine
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Aug 11, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why, for the love of Cthulhu, does netbase depend on inetd in the first
> > place? Let's see:
> Historical reasons.
Not good enough. Not even close.
> > It would be good to get rid of inetd from
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:46:44AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Now, let's see what depends on *-inetd:
> Depends:
> netbase
Hence, everything that wants an inetd can just Depend: on netbase, rather
than specifying it explicitly, so your list is incomplete:
> lukemftpd
> wipl-clien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> It would be good to get rid of inetd from the basic install at all. Those
> No, it would not. UNIX systems are supposed to have an inetd installed.
I see no reason why *Debian* systems should have an inetd installed
unless there is another package inst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 10, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> installed, all using the same configuration file. Is this a use
>> case we really want to support? Are there really setups running
>> multiple inetds for a good reason? Having a virtual
> A g
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:34:39AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why, for the love of Cthulhu, does netbase depend on inetd in the first
> > place? Let's see:
> Historical reasons.
>
> > Now, let's see what depends on *-inetd:
> Under the cur
On Aug 11, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I call them "broken". I believe that administrators do not expect that
> > services are exposed to IPv6 connections unless they are configured this
> > way in inetd.conf.
> A service can listen:
Does not matter. The behaviour of inetd has alw
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:29:48AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 10, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Some inetds automatically listen on v6, whereas others need it
> I call them "broken". I believe that administrators do not expect that
> services are exposed to IPv6 connection
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:56:01PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The inetd daemon installed by default:
> etch: openbsd-inetd | netkit-inetd
> sarge: netkit-inetd
> woody: netkit-inetd (netkit-base, split from netbase)
> potato: (in netbase)
> slink: (in netbase)
> Users
On Aug 10, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * There is no inetd virtual package, so multiple daemons may be
There is no virtual package because aj (who is still the netbase
maintainer, even if he did not touch it in almost five years) mandated
that it should be introduced after the mitical
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:56:01PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> Outstanding issues
> --
>
> * There is no inetd virtual package, so multiple daemons may be
> installed, all using the same configuration file. Is this a use
> case we really want to support? Are there really s
This post is about some issues with the various inetd packages in etch
(and unstable). This is a case where I think some coordination
between all the packages or some inetd package policy would make them
all generally more usable.
The currently available inetd packages, and a summary of their sta
32 matches
Mail list logo
