kory@avatar.avatar.com (Kory Hamzeh) (12/03/90)
I'm trying to get smail 2.5 to work under SCO Unix 3.2.2 and I'm having
lot's of problems. For some reason, smail seems to get in a loop and
respawns itself until the max number of processes per user is exceeded, then,
it just seems to hang.
If anyone has gotten smail to work under sco unix 3.2.2 please help!!
Thanks,
--kory
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kory Hamzeh UUCP: avatar!kory or ..!uunet!avatar!kory
INTERNET: kory@avatar.com klarich@d.cs.okstate.edu (KLARICH TERRY JAME) (12/04/90)
In article <107@avatar.avatar.com> kory@avatar.avatar.com (Kory Hamzeh) writes: >I'm trying to get smail 2.5 to work under SCO Unix 3.2.2 and I'm having >lot's of problems. I would suggest getting mmdf to work. Sco doesn't distribute the latest version. You can get the last release from gatekeeper.dec.com. This is the mailer I use both at home (xenix 2.3.3) and at work (ultrix 4.0). I have been happy with the ease of configuration as well as the ease of operation. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Klarich <klarich@d.cs.okstate.edu> n5hts
calhoun@usaos.uucp (Warren D. Calhoun) (12/04/90)
In <1990Dec3.185151.23821@d.cs.okstate.edu> klarich@d.cs.okstate.edu (KLARICH TERRY JAME) writes: >In article <107@avatar.avatar.com> kory@avatar.avatar.com (Kory Hamzeh) writes: >>I'm trying to get smail 2.5 to work under SCO Unix 3.2.2 and I'm having >>lot's of problems. >I would suggest getting mmdf to work. Sco doesn't distribute the latest >version. You can get the last release from gatekeeper.dec.com. This is >the mailer I use both at home (xenix 2.3.3) and at work (ultrix 4.0). I >have been happy with the ease of configuration as well as the ease of >operation. Or, just go with smail3. It has numerous advantages over smail2.5 (it's a completely different animal), and compiles on SCO Unix 3.2.[012] MUCH easier than mmdf. Combine this with something like ELM 2.3 and you have a powerful setup. -- | SSG W.D. Calhoun | UUCP: ...!uunet!usaos!calhoun | | Gas Turbine Engine (52F) Branch | INTERNET: calhoun%usaos@uunet.uu.net | | The U.S. Army Ordnance School | CompUServe: 76336.2212@compuserve.com | | Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 | Voice: (703) 664-3396/3595 |
time@tbomb.ice.com (Tim Endres) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec04.130145.11290@usaos.uucp>, calhoun@usaos.uucp (Warren D. Calhoun) writes: > Or, just go with smail3. It has numerous advantages over smail2.5 (it's a > completely different animal), and compiles on SCO Unix 3.2.[012] MUCH easier > than mmdf. Combine this with something like ELM 2.3 and you have a powerful > setup. > I agree. My mail feed just recently switched to smail3 and it appears to work *much* better than sendmail! tim. ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Endres | time@ice.com ICE Engineering | uunet!ice.com!time 8840 Main Street | Whitmore Lake MI. 48189 | (313) 449 8288
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (12/10/90)
In article <1CE00001.e5c4ky@tbomb.ice.com> time@tbomb.ice.com writes: > In article <1990Dec04.130145.11290@usaos.uucp>, calhoun@usaos.uucp (Warren D. Calhoun) writes: > > Or, just go with smail3. It has numerous advantages over smail2.5 (it's a > > completely different animal), and compiles on SCO Unix 3.2.[012] MUCH easier > > than mmdf. Combine this with something like ELM 2.3 and you have a powerful > > setup. > > I agree. My mail feed just recently switched to smail3 and it appears > to work *much* better than sendmail! I'm not sure if this is relevant to the above, but I'd strongly suggest that sendmail, mmdf, and smail-3 are all far too complex for anyone not running in an SMTP environment. Smail-2.5, and perhaps lmail-2.6 for local delivery, is more than sufficient as an MTA for UUCP-only sites. On the other hand, I will not dispute that smail-3 is superior to sendmail (and perhaps mmdf). As for MUA's, my preference is MUSH. Though the user-interface of ELM is quite nice, the rest of it is a pain-in-the-butt (IMHO). The MUSH user-interface can do near anything ELM can, is "programmable", and can operate in three fundamental modes (line, curses, suntools). -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/11/90)
According to woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods): >I'm not sure if this is relevant to the above, but I'd strongly >suggest that sendmail, mmdf, and smail-3 are all far too complex for >anyone not running in an SMTP environment. I'll mostly agree, if Batch SMTP counts as "an SMTP environment". Smail 2.5 with Deliver (much preferred to lmail! :-)) is good enough for most UUCP-only sites. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "What's that thing, when people die, they take apart the body to see why?" -- St. Theresa of the Net
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/12/90)
In article <27650187.32DF@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Smail 2.5 with Deliver (much preferred to lmail! :-)) is good enough >for most UUCP-only sites. Absolutely! Smail 2.5, Deliver 2.0, and Mush 6/7 is the perfect combination for a UUCP leaf site. However if UUNET would get on the stick with BSMTP, it would be worth upgrading to Smail3. We could use a little more ease of installation there though. -- To have a horror of the bourgeois (\( Tom Neff is bourgeois. -- Jules Renard )\) tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (12/14/90)
In article <27650187.32DF@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: | [ ... ] Deliver (much preferred to lmail! :-)) [ ... ] OK. I'll bite. What does Deliver provide that lmail doesn't? Lmail allows passing mail to lists of destinations, which can each be lists, mailbox files, or programs. What else do you need? -- Cure the common code... | John Macdonald ...Ban Basic - Christine Linge | jmm@eci386
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/18/90)
According to jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald): >OK. I'll bite. What does Deliver provide that lmail doesn't? >Lmail allows passing mail to lists of destinations, which can >each be lists, mailbox files, or programs. What else do you need? It's not the feature list. It's the implementation. Let me put it this way: I had lmail. That's why I wrote Deliver. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker