Linux does nfs serving with busted file locking. You can easily get
messages inserted inside eachother in inboxes. However, if you have an
nfs server based on Sun or Network Appliance, then you are ok.
We have a Sun based NFS server exporting to several POP servers and a
couple of SMTP server
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Larry Lade wrote:
>
> > >One concern I do have with a Linux-based email system is the relative
> > >inability to do scanning for virii, trojan horses, etc... on the server.
Check out http://www.cyber.com Their Vfind software claims to be able to
scan your system for virii
> "Pat" == Pat Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pat> On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
>> Mail delivery to NFS-mounted volumes is a risky business and wisely
>> widely avoided.
Pat> just delivery or retrieval too??
Mainly delivery. The problem is that it's all too easy to h
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, William T Wilson wrote:
> On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
>
> > Mail delivery to NFS-mounted volumes is a risky business and wisely
> > widely avoided.
>
> That isn't true. There are ways to do this "correctly" and sendmail even
> gives some tips on how to configure it
On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
> Mainly delivery. The problem is that it's all too easy to have a
> locking problem with NFS and get a corrupted mailbox. If you have a
The safest solution is to set one system as the central mail hub. Have
the sendmails on all the other systems forward a
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
> Where? I'm looking through the 'Bat Book' and can't really find anything
> specific to NFS.
Perhaps I was exaggerating somewhat when I said it includes some "tips."
It does mention in the README file that comes with the M4 macros, that you
can use t
At 11:35 a 04/08/98 -0400, Mike Johnson wrote:
>>Is it really fair to call what you get from Microsoft "support"? I'd say
>>it's more like, "one company to get jerked around by while they promise
>>you a fix in the near future."
>
>Well, to get decent support out of Microsoft, you have to pay for
> Pat> I'm willing to bet money that you could use nfs to mirror your
> Pat> mail directory (/var/spool/mail and their home directories if
> Pat> you have people wanting to telnet in and use pine or something)
>
> Mail delivery to NFS-mounted volumes is a risky business and wisely
> widely
On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
> Mail delivery to NFS-mounted volumes is a risky business and wisely
> widely avoided.
That isn't true. There are ways to do this "correctly" and sendmail even
gives some tips on how to configure it in the documentation.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ
On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
> > "Pat" == Pat Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Pat> I'm willing to bet money that you could use nfs to mirror your
> Pat> mail directory (/var/spool/mail and their home directories if
> Pat> you have people wanting to telnet in and use pi
At 11:17 AM 4/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>David Masterson wrote:
>>* one company to get support from
>
>Is it really fair to call what you get from Microsoft "support"? I'd say
>it's more like, "one company to get jerked around by while they promise
>you a fix in the near future."
Well, to get decent
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Paul Fontenot wrote:
> > Pat> I'm willing to bet money that you could use nfs to mirror your
> > Pat> mail directory (/var/spool/mail and their home directories if
> > Pat> you have people wanting to telnet in and use pine or something)
> >
> > Mail delivery to NFS-mo
On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
> Mainly delivery. The problem is that it's all too easy to have a
> locking problem with NFS and get a corrupted mailbox. If you have a
> one-file-per-message mailbox style, such as nnml (GNUS) or maildir
> (qmail), then the NFS locking is more reliable. T
On 8 Apr 1998, James Youngman wrote:
> > "Pat" == Pat Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Pat> I'm willing to bet money that you could use nfs to mirror your
> Pat> mail directory (/var/spool/mail and their home directories if
> Pat> you have people wanting to telnet in and use
David Masterson wrote:
>* one company to get support from
Is it really fair to call what you get from Microsoft "support"? I'd say
it's more like, "one company to get jerked around by while they promise you
a fix in the near future."
-- --
At 02:15 PM 4/8/98 +0200, you wrote:
>I conquered that using a set of restricted access Web pages. With newer
>mail clients, LDAP would also work.
As an aside, if you're already using Eudora as your clients, there's a
ph to ldap gateway that allows older versions of Eudora to act as if
it can do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 12:29 4/8/98 +0100, James Youngman wrote:
>You missed one; where you need a centrally-maintained address book for
>use by remote users.
I conquered that using a set of restricted access Web pages. With newer
mail clients, LDAP would also work.
Maintenance o
> "Steve" == Steve Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok we have some clients that want to put in an M$ Exchange server
> for internal company mail. The workstations are Win95 machines that
> are running Micro$oft Outlook as the client. I suggested a Linux box
> with sendmail over Exchange b
> "Stephan" == Stephan Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephan> - Works with *any* pop (or imap if used) client versus
Stephan> proprietary clients for Exchange. Including free versions
Stephan> of Eudora, Netscape, and Pegasus.
Exchange will work with any POP3 client; I use fetchm
> "Pat" == Pat Hennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pat> I'm willing to bet money that you could use nfs to mirror your
Pat> mail directory (/var/spool/mail and their home directories if
Pat> you have people wanting to telnet in and use pine or something)
Mail delivery to NFS-mounted v
Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 11:16 PM
To: StarrDust
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Sendmail vs MS Exchange Server + MS Outlook
> I am just a newbie here on the RH list, so please excuse any bad manners
> of crashing into a conversation,
> but uh-h-h
I like Outlook Express, honestly. It is one of the best mail clients I
have seen (besides PINE :) ). Although Outlook Full just plain SUCKS!!
Bryan
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Greg Thomas wrote:
|
|> I am just a newbie here on the RH list, so please excuse any bad manners
|> of crashing int
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Derek Balling wrote:
..snip..
>
> Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
> can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance your email
> simply by adding an MX record of equal priority.
>
Derek - how is this implemented in a pop
>One concern I do have with a Linux-based email system is the relative
>inability to do scanning for virii, trojan horses, etc... on the server.
>While server-based scanning is not a replacement for protection at the
>desktop, many companies now insist on it at the mail server as well.
>While th
As painful as using Outlook 97 is for e-mail it worked for me. I was just
using Outlook for my calendar and contacts so I figured I'd try it as an
e-mail client. I didn't use it long because it was very feature poor.
With the Outlook internet mail connectors I believe it's your basic,
poorly im
>Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
>can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance your email
>simply by adding an MX record of equal priority.
Heh, I saw an Oracle ad today boasting about how their mail server could
outpreform something like
Standard E-Mail as in MS Office 97's Outlook. Has anyone used outlook with
sendmail as the server before? If so where there any problems?
>If you are just going to be using standard e-mail then as per the above
>there is absolutely no reason to use Exchange. You can set up Linux and
>Sendmail
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Steve Curry wrote:
> Ok we have some clients that want to put in an M$ Exchange server for
> internal company mail. The workstations are Win95 machines that are running
> Micro$oft Outlook as the client. I suggested a Linux box with sendmail over
> Exchange because it would be
your time,
StarrDust
--
From: Greg Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sendmail vs MS Exchange Server + MS Outlook
As painful as using Outlook 97 is for e-mail it worked for me. I was just
using Outlook for my calendar and contacts so
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Patrick Scott Darden wrote:
> Cons: exchange is a messaging server, not just email--you lose a
> lot of functionality unless you also employ a program like ICQ,
> plus perhaps a local news server, etc.
Well, the best thing about Unix is that you don't ha
On 7 Apr, Greg Thomas wrote:
>
>> I am just a newbie here on the RH list, so please excuse any bad manners
>> of crashing into a conversation,
>> but uh-h-h, could you be just a bit more detailed in what you mean when you
>> say Outlook is 'feature poor', and what more Eudora has to offer as far
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Larry Lade wrote:
> >One concern I do have with a Linux-based email system is the relative
> >inability to do scanning for virii, trojan horses, etc... on the server.
Well, the server itself is going to be 100% immune to virus attacks about
about 99.5% immune to trojan horse
> I am just a newbie here on the RH list, so please excuse any bad manners
> of crashing into a conversation,
> but uh-h-h, could you be just a bit more detailed in what you mean when you
> say Outlook is 'feature poor', and what more Eudora has to offer as far as
> features.
>
The one big thi
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Steve Curry wrote:
> Standard E-Mail as in MS Office 97's Outlook. Has anyone used outlook with
> sendmail as the server before? If so where there any problems?
Lots, because sendmail isn't the server that Outlook uses. You should be
looking at the IMAP and/or POP3 servers (
Pros: cheaper, no per user license, more reliable, more secure
Cons: exchange is a messaging server, not just email--you lose a lot of
functionality unless you also employ a program like ICQ, plus
perhaps a local news server, etc.
-Sincerely,
Patrick
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998
Steve,
The server has to have pop3 support installed as well as sendmail.
Configure outlook as a pop3 client.
It works great except that outlook is a very 'thick' client - takes
forever to load, and wastes a lot of ram if all you use it for is email -
look at eudora pro or calypso as better sin9
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Pat Hennessy wrote:
> Although one thing i just thought of...
>
> If the server with the directories that are nfs mounte'd from the other
> machines goes down for whatever reason, you'd be stuck without mail until
> that machine comes back up.
The solution we use is a SCSI R
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Pat Hennessy wrote:
> > > > Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
> > > > can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance your email
> > > > simply by adding an MX record of equal priority.
Use mulitpe MX records with equal prio
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Pat Hennessy wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Greg Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > > Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
> > > > can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance yo
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Greg Thomas wrote:
>
> > > Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
> > > can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance your email
> > > simply by adding an MX record of equal prior
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Greg Thomas wrote:
> > Scalability: If your server workload on Sendmail is running too high, you
> > can mirror the box over to another machine and load-balance your email
> > simply by adding an MX record of equal priority.
How would this be easily accomplished? We're migra
> Cost: Hardware: Lesser machine required
> Software: Zero. vs NT Server, MS Exchange Server and
> all appropriate license fees. (can get hefty
> in a heavy multi-user environment)
>
> Reliability: Linux servers tend to have uptimes rated in months, wh
Cost: Hardware: Lesser machine required
Software: Zero. vs NT Server, MS Exchange Server and
all appropriate license fees. (can get hefty
in a heavy multi-user environment)
Reliability: Linux servers tend to have uptimes rated in months, whereas a
Ok we have some clients that want to put in an M$ Exchange server for
internal company mail. The workstations are Win95 machines that are running
Micro$oft Outlook as the client. I suggested a Linux box with sendmail over
Exchange because it would be less of an investment and it would run a lot
mo
44 matches
Mail list logo
