-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>> Perhaps WV trained under DJB :)
>
> I'd actually give the silver medal to Sam Varshavchik (Courier).
> Maybe the gold.
Not had much conversation with
On 7/1/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
>
> OOOT folks :)
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> > very happy with Postfix, especially compared to Sendmail (you're
> > kidding!)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
OOOT folks :)
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> very happy with Postfix, especially compared to Sendmail (you're
> kidding!).
We are each different, that's exactly what gives us these
On 7/1/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> >> haha I'm the first to admit it used to have a LOT of serious issues
> >> but in more recent year
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>> haha I'm the first to admit it used to have a LOT of serious issues
>> but in more recent years it hasn't been too bad given its pretty
>> powerfull a
On 6/30/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> > Right. Proven itself full of bugs and feature-poor. ;-)
>
> haha I'm the first to admit it use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> Right. Proven itself full of bugs and feature-poor. ;-)
haha I'm the first to admit it used to have a LOT of serious issues
but in more recent years
>> UW-IMAP is stable, tried and proven as well, the ONLY problem you'll
>> have is what we have complained about for over 10 plus years, its
>> pathetic slow speed.
>
> Guess you're one of the lucky ones that has never had to fix b0rked mbox
> files. Consider yourself extremely lucky. It's not a
On 6/29/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> > The fact that Sendmail comes out on top makes it immediately suspect
>
> Not really, it has prov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> The fact that Sendmail comes out on top makes it immediately suspect
Not really, it has proven itself over time, after all it has been around
for 25
On 6/29/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> >>> Postfix can do anything qmail can do for virtual domain delivery/hosting.
> >>
> >> But not as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>>> Postfix can do anything qmail can do for virtual domain delivery/hosting.
>>
>> But not as simple or as efficiently, been there done that
>
> I'd say
On 6/29/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Nothing wrong with sendmail, tried and proven, yes, it comes down to
> >> "personal choice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>>
>> Nothing wrong with sendmail, tried and proven, yes, it comes down to
>> "personal choices" but for that mater qmail and vpopmail is better for
>> m
On 6/29/07, Res <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Freddie Cash wrote:
>
> > Personal preferance maybe, but don't use sendmail. You'll find Postfix to
> > be a lot nicer to wo
On June 29, 2007 03:12 pm Res wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Freddie Cash wrote:
> UW-IMAP is stable, tried and proven as well, the ONLY problem you'll
> have is what we have complained about for over 10 plus years, its
> pathetic slow speed.
Guess you're one of the lucky ones that has never had to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Res wrote:
> possible like Slackware, you have very few updates to worry about, only
> the security issues, which is higher because of the mutilation the likes
damn, shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Freddie Cash wrote:
> Personal preferance maybe, but don't use sendmail. You'll find Postfix to
> be a lot nicer to work with.
Nothing wrong with sendmail, tried and proven,
On June 28, 2007 10:08 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> but jus wanted to make a few things clear ...
>
> the setup gonna be
> RED hat ES 4
> sendmail
Personal preferance maybe, but don't use sendmail. You'll find Postfix to
be a lot nicer to work with.
> dovecot or UWIMAP
Any IMAP server EXCEPT
On 6/28/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear ALL,
>
> I am currently using squirrel mail for a long time n its works grt.
> but i dont have users here who run into GB of mail jus few MBs maybe 80 to
> 100mb
>
> we have a new domain setup and i wanna implement SQ mail there also
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:08:13PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) the mail box may go upto 2 to 4 gb in sizes..
> 2) if i use UWIMAP server will it be a problem or do i have to use
> dovecoat
Go with dovecot, really.
Rainer
Dear ALL,
I am currently using squirrel mail for a long time n its works grt.
but i dont have users here who run into GB of mail jus few MBs maybe 80 to
100mb
we have a new domain setup and i wanna implement SQ mail there also.
but jus wanted to make a few things clear ...
the setup gonna be
22 matches
Mail list logo
