On Tuesday 20 April 2010 17:51:12 Harry Putnam wrote:
> Grant Edwards writes:
> > On 2010-04-20, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> About all the snipes concerning hacking sendmail.cf... I'm sure you
> >> are all aware that any hacking needs to happen in sendmail.mc... then
> >> let m4 sort out sendmail.cf
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 15:53:01 Harry Putnam wrote:
> I think you all are missing something... sendmail is better documented
> than any of the other pretenders.
One has to understand what the various MTAs out there were built to do, and
what their "feature list" is:
sendmail comes from ancient
On 19 Apr 2010, at 22:50, Mick wrote:
...
The problem is that you'll spend an hour or two setting it all up,
it'll work,
you'll never touch it again. Then, two years later something will
require you
to reconfigure it and there will be no way on this earth that you will
remember what you di
On 20 Apr 2010, at 14:53, Harry Putnam wrote:
I think you all are missing something... sendmail is better documented
than any of the other pretenders.
...
Unless, I'm terribly misinformed, sendmail is still the most commonly
used mta in the unix world of servers.
I would be surprised if it is
On Monday 19 April 2010 20:20:27 you wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 21:07:47 Mick wrote:
> > On Monday 19 April 2010 15:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > > On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > > > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> >
On Monday 19 April 2010 20:19:16 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 16:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> > >>> I was reminded that I do not understand s
On Monday 19 April 2010 21:07:47 Mick wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010 15:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> > >>> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail e
On Monday 19 April 2010 16:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> >>> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail enough for my liking.
> >>
> >> Does anybody?
> >
> >
>
On Monday 19 April 2010 15:49:34 Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-04-19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> >>> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail enough for my liking.
> >>
> >> Does anybody?
> >
> >
>
On 2010-04-18 6:27 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
>
>> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail enough for my liking.
>
> Does anybody?
That's why Wietse invented postfix.
--
Charles
On Sunday 18 April 2010 22:06:44 Mick wrote:
> I was reminded that I do not understand sendmail enough for my liking.
Does anybody?
--
Rgds
Peter.
On Sunday 18 April 2010 16:14:50 Harry Putnam wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > For the purpose of posterity:
> >
> > The way to set up a fall back host is to use confFALLBACK_SMARTHOST to
> > define a fall back smtp server.
>
> Thanks Mick... Instead of asking for help, you ended up giving help.
>
> Di
On Saturday 17 April 2010 00:51:39 Harry Putnam wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Is there a (native) way to configure sendmail to send messages via a
> > secondary smtp account, if dor some reason the primary ISP smtp is
> > down, without some bespoke DIY script?
>
> Not give you the run
On Saturday 17 April 2010 00:51:39 Harry Putnam wrote:
> comp.mail.sendmail
Thank you Harry, I will. Just thought that there may be a Gentoo user who's
already tried this - plus this is my favorite list alright. ;-)
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
14 matches
Mail list logo
