I have tossed around the idea of a ham specific configuration that
would fit on a zip disk. Not the fastest way to run the system,
but you could set up a swap and var/temp area on a small local
hard drive, use a ramdisk and have an easy way to upgrade the node.
I haven't thought about what softwa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 03.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"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
>I'm collecting names of those who have either emailled me or mentioned
>interest in seeing Debian a little easier on the novice user (but without
>getting annoying to the experienced user!) and will be in the next day or
>two trying to see if maybe we can get some projects organized to make
Debia
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 04:19:31AM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:40:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We are probably wasting everyone's time now by not looking to see just what
> > fetchmail/procmail interface actually i
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:40:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are probably wasting everyone's time now by not looking to see just what
> fetchmail/procmail interface actually is...
>
> As I understand it, the fetchmail/procmail interface is a kludge.
No, actually it's a pipe.. =>
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:45:24PM +0400, Amos Shapira wrote:
> |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
> |sendma
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 07:10:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rev> How did you get sendmail to cooperate with dialup?
>
> What do you mean by cooperate? I send mail using sendmail
> whenever I want to. On up-up, I do a sendmail -q. I download messages
> using fetchmail. As to my send
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:39:44PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> 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 i
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
I don't see why either but it sure has not been done.
[snip]
> I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to make configuration just
> as easy for a dial-up case. We need to figure out what the typical dial-up
> cases look like and integrate them into the confi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion, sendmail is well documented *and* has lots of
> documentation. I also fail to find sendmail.cf obfuscatory -- but
> then, I have been writing sendmail.cf files since 1992.
Depends what you're trying to do, I suppose.
When I wan
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 07:38:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rev> The script didn't deal with the fact that I didn't have a static
> Rev> IP/name.
>
> Hmm. I don't quite understand that -- I think I just had my
> machine set up as 127.0.0.2 or something (I could also have used
> 192
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:41:10AM +0200, Hugo Haas wrote:
> > > root: The person who gets root's mail (also daemons', etc).
> > > This userid (on the mailhub) get all mail sent to
> > > local adressees with userids less than 10. In other
> > > words, she gets mail
Hi,
>>"Rev" == Rev Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rev> The script didn't deal with the fact that I didn't have a static
Rev> IP/name.
Hmm. I don't quite understand that -- I think I just had my
machine set up as 127.0.0.2 or something (I could also have used
192.168.1.10 or s
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 12:54:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:34:28PM -0700, Joey Hess 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.
Does ssmtp
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:39:25PM -0700, Joey Hess 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 slr
Hi,
>>"Rev" == Rev Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> manoj who is happy with sendmail and does have a dialup connection
>> and diald
Rev> How did you get sendmail to cooperate with dialup?
What do you mean by cooperate? I send mail using sendmail
whenever I want to. On up-up,
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:27:29AM +1000, Craig Sanders 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?
>
> sen
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> [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 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
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
> > 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
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
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
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
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, May 02, 1998 at 10:52:48PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> > But this is aimed at dialup users! You don't want a send-only MTA, as dialup
> > users presumably want to store their mail locally.
>
> Their mail isn't gonna get delivered by smtp
No? I know several dialup ISPs that do prov
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 06:52:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > root: The person who gets root's mail (also daemons', etc).
> > > This userid (on the mailhub) get all mail sent to
> > > local adressees with userids less than 10. In other
> > > words, she gets mai
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:24:30PM +0100, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > You DON'T need a news server. slrn is a good thing here!
> >
> > Any newsreader, for that matter -- rtin, for example.
>
> No, that's useless on dialup links, which I understand is a large part of
> the market Jim wants to aim for
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:22:31PM +0100, Mark Baker 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.
>
> But this is aimed at dialup users! You don't want a send-only MTA,
> > root: The person who gets root's mail (also daemons', etc).
> > This userid (on the mailhub) get all mail sent to
> > local adressees with userids less than 10. In other
> > words, she gets mail the system mails to root, daemon,
> > etc.
Rev
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:22:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> This might work for some people -- people with constant net connections
> or who don't mind waiting for demand-dialed ppp every time they want
> to send a message.
Yeah, the lack of a queue bothered me, but at the same time most MUA's
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:43:22AM -0700, Jim Pick 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.
>
> I haven't looked at it. It's only 15k! That would be a really good
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:36:28AM -0700, John Labovitz wrote:
> > The whole exim package is about 500k, which only takes 5 minutes or so
> > to download via modem - so I'd probably stick with that (unless
> > something better comes along). MTA choices are easy, because there is
> > very little us
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 01:37:28AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You need MTA. You just do. But you don't need a complex MTA. If you
> > consider sendmail the standard to judge by, most everything is smaller,
> > simpler, or better for personal systems. My personal choice for an MTA is
> > q
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:11:48AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You need MTA. You just do. But you don't need a complex MTA. If you
> > consider sendmail the standard to judge by, most everything is smaller,
> > simpler, or better for personal systems. My personal choice for an MTA is
> > qmai
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 01:37:28AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> things (like different alias files per domain). exim and smail are both
> easy to set up with the provided configuration programs though
> (which seem pretty much identical in my limited experience).
eximconfig was originally based
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.
But this is aimed at dialup users! You don't want a send-only MTA, as di
John Labovitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
The problem with ssmtp is that it doesn't have a queue. That means
if it can't deliver the mes
John Labovitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The whole exim package is about 500k, which only takes 5 minutes or so
> > to download via modem - so I'd probably stick with that (unless
> > something better comes along). MTA choices are easy, because there
Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The whole exim package is about 500k, which only takes 5 minutes or so
> to download via modem - so I'd probably stick with that (unless
> something better comes along). MTA choices are easy, because there is
> very little user-visible stuff involved.
have
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think smail or exim would do fine.
I'm in love with exim myself. :-)
The whole exim package is about 500k, which only takes 5 minutes or so
to download via modem - so I'd probably stick with that (unless
something better comes along). MTA choices
Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1 May 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see more people announce that they want to develop their
> > own "subset" Linux distributions based on Debian. I'd be willing to
> > collaborate on tools to make this easier.
>
>Interesting. I'm
Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 11:10:39PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
>
> > - targetted towards desktop use only, no server apps, just a few games
> >
> > - minimal size - optimized for installation via 28.8k modem via FTP,
> >which will be the primary distrib
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:58:11PM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> You need MTA. You just do. But you don't need a complex MTA. If you
> consider sendmail the standard to judge by, most everything is smaller,
> simpler, or better for personal systems. My personal choice for an MTA is
> qmail
Rev. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need MTA. You just do. But you don't need a complex MTA. If you
> consider sendmail the standard to judge by, most everything is smaller,
> simpler, or better for personal systems. My personal choice for an MTA is
> qmail. The savings in conf
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Mark Baker wrote:
> > - targetted towards desktop use only, no server apps, just a few games
> >
> > - minimal size - optimized for installation via 28.8k modem via FTP,
> >which will be the primary distribution mechanism (not CD).
>
> These don't s
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 11:10:39PM -0700, Jim Pick wrote:
> - targetted towards desktop use only, no server apps, just a few games
>
> - minimal size - optimized for installation via 28.8k modem via FTP,
>which will be the primary distribution mechanism (not CD).
These don't seem consisten
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I find this interesting
(I notice someone else mentioned something too...I guess say it and others
with similar ideas come out of the woodwork)
I thought of basing a Distribution on Debian but...
a VERY TINY dist...
in fact the way I am thinkin gof...it would
On 1 May 1998, Jim Pick wrote:
> I'd like to see more people announce that they want to develop their
> own "subset" Linux distributions based on Debian. I'd be willing to
> collaborate on tools to make this easier.
Interesting. I'm starting up an ISP with a Debian focus, and planning
to pro
Hi all,
I read with interest Bruce's post that he wants to work on another
Linux distribution. :-)
As long as we are talking "pie in the sky" stuff, I thought I'd let
loose with the news that I am also developing an alternative Linux
distribution. I've sort of hinted about it on several of my
70 matches
Mail list logo
