On 2022-08-29, OB-Linux GNU wrote:
> Hello
>
> I use imapsync occasionally. In the new version, it sends emails to
> users at every run. I want to prevent this. (h...@imapsync.tk)
>
> is there any way to prevent this?
>
>
I don't think this soft is in the official repositories. Seems a little fu
Hi Daniel and everybody,
It's a reply for the Daniel's message
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/10/msg00481.html
I encounter the topic sometimes, how about imapsync back into Debian?
As the author of imapsync, my quick answer is yes, I would be pleased
to see imapsync brought back into
Florian Pelgrim writes:
>
> I wanted to start now a rant against Cyrus but holy shit... They have
> got a new website and it all looks modern... Maybe I should take a look
> on it again.
>
I don't care if it *looks* modern, as long as it has more information
than the old site(s); I quite like Cyru
Hi,
> It is a server with Squeeze and
> they do not even bother to use the LTS repositories, so more than two
> years ago that server is without security updates.
Problems I defently see to much in the web... :(
> So that is a not minor matter that we have to consider to be sure that
> this site
Daniel Bareiro:
> On 14/10/16 16:30, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>>> I am planning to migrate about 200 e-mail accounts from a mail server
>>> using Dovecot to a mail server running Cyrus.
>
>> Sounds weird! I though most people migrate _to_ Dovecot nowadays (if
>> they haven't already). Care to elab
Hi, Jochen.
On 14/10/16 16:30, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> I am planning to migrate about 200 e-mail accounts from a mail server
>> using Dovecot to a mail server running Cyrus.
> Sounds weird! I though most people migrate _to_ Dovecot nowadays (if
> they haven't already). Care to elaborate the rea
Daniel Bareiro:
>
> I am planning to migrate about 200 e-mail accounts from a mail server
> using Dovecot to a mail server running Cyrus.
Sounds weird! I though most people migrate _to_ Dovecot nowadays (if
they haven't already). Care to elaborate the reasons? I don't want to
discuss it, I am jus
Hi, Henrique.
On 14/10/16 11:38, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>> For the current license, this could make it a candidate for
>> incorporation in the Debian repositories again?
> We don't usually distribute software against upstream wishes. I sup
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> For the current license, this could make it a candidate for
> incorporation in the Debian repositories again?
We don't usually distribute software against upstream wishes. I suppose
there are exceptions, but IMHO there aren't any exceendingly good
reas
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:41:42 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 17:10:14 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Great, but I've also read this (which is the reason why the packages
>> was removed):
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#60
>
> The Debian maintainer ceased t
On Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 13:28:11 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've alredy read it, and...? I still don't get his point. What's the
> > gain in limiting its distribution? You can still charge the users for it.
>
> I think that the developer wa
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:28:11 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I've alredy read it, and...? I still don't get his point. What's
>> the gain in limiting its distribution? You can still charge the users
>> for it.
>
> I think that the developer was
On Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 17:10:14 +, Camaleón wrote:
> Great, but I've also read this (which is the reason why the packages was
> removed):
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#60
The Debian maintainer ceased to maintain the package and said why.
Nobody else has stepped
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Yes, I've alredy read it, and...? I still don't get his point. What's the
> gain in limiting its distribution? You can still charge the users for it.
I think that the developer was pissed off by this email:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:07:12 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> If you buy it you can do what do you want (WTFPL license) with it, so
>>> you can distribute if you want. But I imagine buying software to
>>> distribute it is not the Debian Philosop
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:35:53 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 10:51:34 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> I can understand that the package is provided with a monetary cost (but
>> still open source). What I fail to see is why the author does not want
>> it to be distributed by anyone :-?
>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:46:29 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
[1] http://www.linux-france.org/prj/imapsync_list/msg00732.html
>>>
>>> Yes, I've alredy read it, and...? I still don
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:46:29 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>>> [1] http://www.linux-france.org/prj/imapsync_list/msg00732.html
>>
>> Yes, I've alredy read it, and...? I still don't get his point. What's
>> the gain in limiting its distribu
On Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 10:51:34 +, Camaleón wrote:
> I can understand that the package is provided with a monetary cost (but
> still open source). What I fail to see is why the author does not want it
> to be distributed by anyone :-?
He has never said that. Quite the opposite:
I repeat w
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:09:39 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
Have a look at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#65 -
it
>>> seems
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:09:39 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> Have a look at
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#65 -
>>> it
>> seems
>>> the author wanted it removed because he started to charge
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:01:05 -0700, dlists wrote:
>
>>> Would you know the reasons why "imapsync" has been in Lenny but no more
>>> in "squeeze" nor "sid"?
>>
>> Hey Mihamina,
>>
>> Have a look at
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:01:05 -0700, dlists wrote:
>> Would you know the reasons why "imapsync" has been in Lenny but no more
>> in "squeeze" nor "sid"?
>
> Hey Mihamina,
>
> Have a look at
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#65 - it
seems
> the author wa
> Hi all,
> Would you know the reasons why "imapsync" has been in Lenny but no more
> in "squeeze" nor "sid"?
Hey Mihamina,
Have a look at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609845#65 - it seems the
author wanted it removed because he started to charge for the script
--
On 21/06/11 14:46, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Would you know the reasons why "imapsync" has been in Lenny but no more
> in "squeeze" nor "sid"?
>
from:-
http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/imapsync.html
todo :- The package should be updated to follow the last version of
Debian Poli
25 matches
Mail list logo
