|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: Header logging, revisited
From: Michael Schwager (mike
schwager.com)Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 12:40:11 CST
- Next message: Brad Knowles: "Re: more woes...new installation help"
- Previous message: Grendel: "Re: how to bind smtp client to specific address?"
- In reply to: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Next in thread: Jim Seymour: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Reply: Michael Schwager: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > 5. Next year they plan to replace our Sun's with Windows 2000
> > boxes.
> Yes! Management decision time again.
Heh... how did you guess? :)
> I think if you would do delivery using procmail anyway you wouldn't need to
> spawn yet another process... This would eliminate the need for always_bcc,
> too.
Procmail is for local mailbox delivery, no? Or can it speak SMTP? (I
don't know, I've only used it for mail filtering at my ISP) At any rate,
our boxes have almost *no* users on them; they're for relay only.
I fear that a weighty program like procmail could obviate any performance
gains we get by using Postfix (vs. sendmail).
-- -Mike MikeSchwager.com
- Next message: Brad Knowles: "Re: more woes...new installation help"
- Previous message: Grendel: "Re: how to bind smtp client to specific address?"
- In reply to: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Next in thread: Jim Seymour: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Reply: Michael Schwager: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]