Thanks to all for helping me with my email server, installed Qmail-mysql and
is working awsome :)
Alex
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Don Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for doing the testing. I just committed this patch.
Seems fine here too -- many thanks.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any
On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
>
>> On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> > In my review of 1.87, I forgot to ask you how atomic the close is with part
>> > of it moved out to fifo_inactive(). I think it's important that all
>> > traces of the old open have gone
On 16 Jun, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> I run qmail on my 4.8 servers.
>
> For my sanity, is this a problem in 5.1-RELEASE, or in code after 5.1-RELEASE?
> We haven't upgraded to 5.1 yet (and don't intend to for a while), but I thought
> I'd ask since this bug would cr
revision 1.88
>> diff -u -r1.88 fifo_vnops.c
>> --- sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c 13 Jun 2003 06:58:11 - 1.88
>> +++ sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c 16 Jun 2003 08:44:20 -
> [...]
>
> Yes! This seems to work fine :)
>
> qmail-send doesn&
ng revision 1.88
>> diff -u -r1.88 fifo_vnops.c
>> --- sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c 13 Jun 2003 06:58:11 - 1.88
>> +++ sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c 16 Jun 2003 08:44:20 -
> [...]
>
> Yes! This seems to work fine :)
I run qmail on my 4.8 servers.
For
58:11 - 1.88
> +++ sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c16 Jun 2003 08:44:20 -
[...]
Yes! This seems to work fine :)
qmail-send doesn't increase cpu usage after the first mail anymore.
Thanks a lot,
Thorsten
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 16 Jun, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > In my review of 1.87, I forgot to ask you how atomic the close is with part
> > of it moved out to fifo_inactive(). I think it's important that all
> > traces of the old open have gone away (as far as applications can tell)
covered under the "exceptional event"
and "read" select flags (a subsequent read will return 0).
Also, you should remember that qmail opens the thing with
non-blocking I/O, and then expects the select to block. Very
odd program, qmail.
-- Terry
___
On 16 Jun, Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
>
>> > I don't know what it could be - perhaps a problem with named pipes
>> > ("lock/trigger")?
>> >
>> > You can find my ktrace output here: http://cs.so36.net/~ths/kdump.txt
>
>> Which version of fifo_vnops.c
e
>> >> soclose() calls to fifo_inactive() may have caused it.
>> >
>> > This is an interesting observation, but I'm not sure why it would make a
>> > difference. I haven't looked at the qmail source, but it looks like it
>> > is doing a
t;
> > This is an interesting observation, but I'm not sure why it would make a
> > difference. I haven't looked at the qmail source, but it looks like it
> > is doing a non-blocking open on the fifo, calling select() on the fd,
> > and hoping that select() w
G_5_0 and
>>> RELENG_5_1 caused the problem.
>>
>> Looks like revision 1.86 works, but it stops working with 1.87. Moving the
>> soclose() calls to fifo_inactive() may have caused it.
>
> This is an interesting observation, but I'm not sure why it would make a
>
On 16 Jun, Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:09:51PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
>>
>> > I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
>> > per w
Hi,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Don Lewis wrote:
> > I don't know what it could be - perhaps a problem with named pipes
> > ("lock/trigger")?
> >
> > You can find my ktrace output here: http://cs.so36.net/~ths/kdump.txt
> Which version of fifo_vnops.c? If the problem is present in
> 5.1-RELEASE, then
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:09:51PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
>
> > I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
> > per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
>
On 16 Jun, Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2003, Chris Shenton wrote:
>
>> [...] qmail is run under daemontools and all work fine (the configuration
>> is 2 years old!), but when I delivery the first mail (localy or remote)
>> the qma
Hi,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2003, Chris Shenton wrote:
> [...] qmail is run under daemontools and all work fine (the configuration
> is 2 years old!), but when I delivery the first mail (localy or remote)
> the qmail-send process fire up to 100% of CPU infinitely
>
> All
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote:
> I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
> per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
> 5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to
> 5.1
> I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
> per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
> 5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to
> 5.1-CURRENT a couple days back, the qmail-send process started using
&g
I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much
per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD
5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to
5.1-CURRENT a couple days back, the qmail-send process started using
all CPU.
last pid:
>
> Well ... for that purpose I'd vote for the following:
>
> a) make more
> NO_ (sendmail, bind, whatever)
>knobs in /etc/make.conf as needed
> b) make the Makefiles in the install target more complete by
>removing (old) occurrencies of sendmail, bind, if such a
>NO_XXX knob has
At 11:21 PM -0700 2000/4/12, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> They subsequently disappeared into the same black hole which swallows
> so many prospective volunteers, it seems, and all that was left to
> mark the event was the echos of thread in the mail archives. :-)
Sorry, my fault. I sho
We argue about this a lot. Nobody has, as yet, ever done the work to
make "bindist" a meta-package which depends (perhaps selectively) on
sub-packages like groff, sendmail, gcc, et al. to achieve the required
state of "bundling by default but not by requirement" in FreeBSD.
This is despite the f
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 05:21:24PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Remove Sendmail from the base system - or, at least, make it a "package"
> > that is removable with the package management tool. Then be able to add
> > another mailer (or an updated Sendmail) in its place. Ideally, Sendmail
> > wo
just more widely publicized than other mailers
faults are. However, there's more to making a successful system than
just having it be totally secure, it also has to be useful.
I will pitch a huge fit about chosing QMAIL to go into the tree. Any
mailer more complex than cat will likely get
On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 05:21:24PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> Remove Sendmail from the base system - or, at least, make it a "package"
> that is removable with the package management tool. Then be able to add
> another mailer (or an updated Sendmail) in its place. Ideally, Sendmail
> would be ava
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Please go back and read what I _wrote_. Your response assumes I made
>
> I've got your message, I quoted it fully in my first response. You asked
> to "Remove Sendmail from the base system", and that's a direct quote, Joe.
Yes. Th
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> Please go back and read what I _wrote_. Your response assumes I made
I've got your message, I quoted it fully in my first response. You asked
to "Remove Sendmail from the base system", and that's a direct quote, Joe.
> statements that I cert
How will this affect this /etc/mail/mailer.conf "thing" (and I wonder
why that was put there to begin with).
If we're going to use a mailer.conf, then it should be able to
work with other MTAs; which it probably won't because they perform
their respective tasks differently.
_F
To Unsubscribe
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > Uh, Chuck, can you tell me how many BIND and Sendmail advisories there have
> > been in the last five years?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if we could just tell newbies, "hey, yeah, that Sendmail
> > has a known security issue, pkg_delete it and then a
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
> Uh, Chuck, can you tell me how many BIND and Sendmail advisories there have
> been in the last five years?
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we could just tell newbies, "hey, yeah, that Sendmail
> has a known security issue, pkg_delete it and then add this new on
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > > In other words, if we're going to be replacing sendmail with an
> > > alternative MTA, I'd prefer postfix over qmail, and I believe I can
> > > marshall some pretty strong arguments for that posi
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Joe Greco wrote:
> > In other words, if we're going to be replacing sendmail with an
> > alternative MTA, I'd prefer postfix over qmail, and I believe I can
> > marshall some pretty strong arguments for that position.
>
> Perhap
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 05:21:24PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > While it is fantastic that FreeBSD comes out of the box so fully
> > functional, it does make it a bit of a pain for those of us who intend
> > to build servers - we have to disable the original before installing a
> > new package.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 05:21:24PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> While it is fantastic that FreeBSD comes out of the box so fully
> functional, it does make it a bit of a pain for those of us who intend
> to build servers - we have to disable the original before installing a
> new package. :-/
man m
> At 2:44 PM -0400 2000/4/9, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>
> > The advantage would be that we can have a fairly decent qmail
> configuration
> > using the standard make world feature.
> >
> > Is there any interest in that kind of work ?
>
> C
At 5:40 PM -0400 2000/4/9, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>> Then people that are running a mail server could install either the
>> Sendmail, Postfix, Qmail, Zmail, etc... MTA ports.
>
> Sounds like a great idea. The reason why I am doing this is because I DONT
> want sendma
At 2:44 PM -0400 2000/4/9, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> The advantage would be that we can have a fairly decent qmail configuration
> using the standard make world feature.
>
> Is there any interest in that kind of work ?
Considering the number of qmail-specific pieces tha
qmail is distributed as "freeware" according to freshmeat.net. They do
not define the term, but by my definition, freeware would be freer
than the BSD license.
* Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000409 15:04]:
> I don't recall the particulars (it's been a while since
- Original Message -
From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:44:25PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> > I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part of the
> > "world". I think that i
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:44:25PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part of the
> "world". I think that it would be nice to have an alternative for the mailer
> package to be built as part of a make world.
...
>
* Patrick Bihan-Faou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000409 14:25] wrote:
> From: "Jon Parise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:44:25PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> >
> > > I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part
From: "Jon Parise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:44:25PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
>
> > I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part
> > of the "world". I think that it would be nice to have an
> >
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:44:25PM -0400, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part
> of the "world". I think that it would be nice to have an
> alternative for the mailer package to be built as part of a make
> worl
Hi,
I have integrated the source of qmail so it can be built as part of the
"world". I think that it would be nice to have an alternative for the mailer
package to be built as part of a make world.
What I would like to do is upgrate the "NO_SENDMAIL" variable to a
&quo
46 matches
Mail list logo
